Wikipedia talk:No original research

Archives

See also Wikipedia talk:Proposal to replace No Original Research
For the "Sandbox", click here.

law / articles about legal cases

I have some distinct opinions about the above (activist videos have recently shown up on another article, too; technical "source distinctions" should be used when helpful to explain things but should not, themselves, form the basis of policy or guidelines; I think of encyclopedia articles as akin to "review articles" in science) but that's all being said to death in one form or another. So here I have another area of writing & scholarship that hasn't been discussed but poses another set of issues; perhaps this will be a useful test case for people to test their opinions & proposals against.

Articles about law pose several issues for original research, particularly articles about legal cases. The opinion is itself a (cited) synthesis of research and is simultaneously the subject of other, conflicting opinions -- scholarly, popular, and legal/authoritative. Very few statements in a case unambiguously mean what they say -- we lawyers will certainly find ambiguity in any statement, over time. In practice, those of us who write on legal topics don't have much difficulty navigating this field; but attempting to apply the various iterations of WP:PSTS (I'm tempted to think of this as "WP:PTSD") clouds the issue, for me, at least. It's a good bit like the philosophy problem, above, except that citation practices are quite formalized in law and often very particular to individual quotes.

Discuss amongst yourselves. (-: Lquilter 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that court documents are considered primary sources. This would include the Judge's decision. Its perfectly acceptable to include a declarative statement about a legal decision in an article on something that directly relates to the case (for example: a biography of one of the litigants), and it is fine to cite that decision to back that declarative statement ... but any analysis or interpretation of the decision... any discussion of what that decision means beyond the narrow context of the individual case should be referenced to reliable secondary sources such as legal journals. Blueboar 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Court documents are considered primary if they are a primary or original source of the information on the topic, but if not, then they are secondary. It all depends on how the court document is used. Any source "may be primary or secondary, depending on what the researcher is looking for". Monagahn, E.J. & Hartman, D.K. (2001), "Historical research in literacy", Reading Online 4 (11). COGDEN 02:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

By most scholarly definitions of "primary source", the Supreme Court is a primary source. It's not difficult to imagine a case where the Supreme Court disagrees with virtually all law professors. The Solomon Amendment case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., may have been such a case. How could we handle such an outcome? By most reasonable definitions of "primary source", the Supreme Court is a primary source. Do we really want to say that the U.S. Supreme Court, as a primary source, can't be quoted in a law article and that old law review articles must be preferred to its recent decisions when the two disagree? Functionally, the Supreme Court represents one of many examples of non-academic bodies that conduct peer review. Its function is to peer-review other legal decisions, and it only takes cases it considers notable (and its calls on notability are widely accepted in the field). Thus it functions in its field in a way that permits its decisions to be regarded as reviews of legal matters in a way that reliably permits basing notability on its actions. But by the primary-secondary-tertiary source schema, a Supreme Court opinion is a primary source. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

the decision is the the authoritative source for what it says, but not necessarily for what it means. The primary-secondary distinction is not relevant here, except to the extent that finding a reliable summary of even what the decision says may be best done from a secondary source--not necessarily even a law review, but a reliable quality newspaper. DGG (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You absolutely may quote a Supreme Court decision... The only caveat is that you should stick to discussing exactly what the decision says, and not include any interpretation or analysis the decision unless you have a reliable secondary source that does so. Declarative statements about what a court document says (ie quotes from the document) can be cited to the primary source (the document itself)... Statements about what the document means (analysis or interpretation), on the other hand, need to be cited to secondary sources. Its that simple. Blueboar 14:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is true of any source. Why make a distinction between primary and secondary if the same rule applies? COGDEN 00:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What about what a court says about another court? What if it's an inferior court's decision on a superior court's decision? ... Answering own question: I think you just have to say that "x-and-x courts have interpreted this as xyz, a view which has been followed by all the courts that have examined the issue" etc. I agree that secondary/tertiary is not helpful here -- "secondary" would be law reviews, newspapers, etc. -- but more relevant are the cascade of "authority": statute & cases first; followed by regulations & administrative interpretations & AG opinions; some of the most authoritative treatises or scholars that achieve widespread acclaim; all the rest of them; etc. This is what every first-year law student learns -- secondary/tertiary distinctions exist but are not that important, even in writing legal encyclopedias. --Lquilter 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is an important example of where secondary and tertiary literature are vital. Secondary literature is indeed inclusive of law reviews and newspapers, as well as numerous law summaries by competent lawyers and law professors. Tertiary sources include AmJur, legal hornbooks and a wealth of various other reliable legal summary material that specializes in integrating and analyzing the many important aspects of case law and statutory law. It most certainly is not our job in WP to be analyzing court decisions without benefit of secondary and tertiary sources. If the issue has to do with a specific court decision and how it affects public policy or other aspects of people's pursuits in the context of a particular WP article, secondary sources are similarly vital, and presently required by WP editorial policy so as to not conduct our own WP:Original research such as may be expected of law students, lawyers, professional legal researchers, law clerks and judges (indeed all of these frequently rely quite heavily on secondary and tertiary sources for their own background research). Any complaints within WP about reliability, or lack therof, of secondary and/or tertiary sources, can be discussed by participants in an article under a WP:Verifiability#Reliable_sources analysis. ... Kenosis 15:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

But why must we distinguish b/w secondary & tertiary? --Lquilter 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to make any distinction between secondary and tertiary sources, let alone a hard-and-fast one. The utility of tertiary sources, though, wherever one chooses to draw the transitional stage between secondary and tertiary, is presently mentioned on the policy page. And the mention of tertiary sources also resolves the conceptual question of "what is Wikipedia?" as well as the question of what are other encyclopedias and other resources that feature summaries based upon very large numbers of primary and secondary sources. As with all the editorial policies including WP:V, it generally requires some degree of flexibility, some degree of respect for other people's often differing approaches and ideas, some degree of thinking about the editorial approach, some degree of interpersonal interaction, some degree of discussion as may be necessary, and some degree of reasonable judgment, in order to arrive at reasonable results that will be useful to a reader of the content. This is particularly the case where there are disagreements about a topic among those interested in that topic. Editors who are unwilling or unable to discuss with other editors how to arrive at a reasonable judgment in applying policy to editing practice, in my estimation, will tend to find editing very difficult with or without these core content polices. I say this in defense of the PSTS section in light of the obvious fact that the "lines" between primary, secondary and tertiary are not hard-and-fast and, as with other policies, may require discussion to arrive at a workable result in a particular wikiproject or a particular article. ... Kenosis 19:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well argued, thanks. A breath of fresh air... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't breath too much of it. We still haven't made any headway in determining which legal sources are primary and which are secondary, and why it even matters. You apply the same rules for any type of source, regardless of primariness, because all legal sources are both primary and secondary, depending on how they are used. For cases, you might say that the true primary sources could be the briefs, court papers, transcripts, and precedent. After all, the judge is just commenting on the evidence placed before her—just creating a secondary source from primary materials. Every legal source is both primary and secondary, and there's no principled way to distinguish them except by pulling definitions out of our asses that have nothing to do with the idea of "primariness" or "secondariness" and add WP:CREEP. We need a principled policy. COGDEN 00:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. Any randomly chosen group of twelve lawyers would be almost certain to arrive at a consensus that legal cases and legislated laws are primary sources, IMO. And yes, a group of participants in an article about a legal topic could readily decide that so too are the briefs and testimony and other specific documents that make up the content of a single court case. And similarly it goes with legislation, where various documents are involved prior to the publication of the official legislation. I could understand that there might be some debate about whether, say, CFR is primary or secondary, but this kind of topic-specific determination should IMO be left to the local consensus in such a way that if a particular dispute requires WP:Comment, WP:Mediation or WP:Arbitration, that a group of reasonably educated commentators, mediators, or arbitrators can handle the situation as may be needed, without needing specialist knowledge to do it. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Local consensus cannot trump Wikipedia-wide policy. If we say (as we currently do) that secondary sources "draw on primary sources to make generalizations), and we admit that court records and briefs are primary sources, then ipso facto, legal opinions are secondary source. Of course, they are primary sources too. Yet another example of why the "primariness" or "secondariness" of sources is a totally unprincipled distinction, compared to a distinction such as "rawness" or "interpretiveness". COGDEN 20:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cogden, this statement is a blatant abuse of the concept that consensus doesn't trump policy. Consensus interprets policy virtually all the time at the local level. We don't need policy wonks like yourself (or myself or anyone's self) telling every article participant as a matter of policy where precisely the dividing line is between primary and secondary sources, except to say, as the policy page already does, that an original source of a particular concept is a primary source and to let the wikipedia participants work out the rest of it article by article or at least category by category. You yourself have noted that sources can be primary in one context yet secondary in another context. The article editors work the rest out for themselves, just like they work out what NPOV is article by article. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In other words, without the ability of parties in an RfC, RfM or RfAr to point to secondary and tertiary sources that support an alleged primary-source interpretation, a highly technical topic will tend to seem like gobbledygook to the non-specialist, but with WP:PSTS there is at least a rational policy-based method within which WP users can point to other sources that back up the particular interpretaion at issue in a particular topic, without necessitating that only users with specialized knowledge will participate in such a content dispute where there is disagreement about it. (If there's no disagreement about it among the experts, there's generally no issue related to any policy at all, including of course WP:PSTS.) Does this solve every possible permutation of how such a debate could go? No, of course not. But IMO it goes a long way towards allowing WP to handle most of the reasonably forseeable editorial conflicts without amounting to excessive policy creep. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no guarantee that secondary sources are any less technical or specialized than the primary sources. In math, physics, and all scientific fields, secondary sources are more technical than their references (with the exception of tertiary sources). In the legal field, as well, secondary sources are usually just as technical and specialized as the cases they cite, often more so. If we are concerned about specialized sources, why even talk about primariness and secondariness? Why not just propose a rule that all technical and specialized sources are bad (be they primary or secondary), while sources written to a lay audience are good. If we oppose technical sources, let's use the right tool for the job. COGDEN 20:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. we speak of "primary" and "secondary" because it's a standard way of expressing it in libraries worldwide, and because like the other core editorial policies it's the way the founding director expressed it when setting the policy in motion. The only really significant aspect that WP editors have added is the mention of tertiary sources to account for encyclopedic material and other large compendia of numerous primary and secondary sources, and that's not a major conceptual departure from the original expression of the concept by J.Wales. And as a matter of fact, Wales first put forward the concept in the context of highly technical material in the first place. If certain highly technical material is questioned or contested and the very highly technical editors can't find secondary sources that back up the statements or formulas that those editors assert is in a certain primary source, the directive is that it can't be used in Wikipedia except within the limits prescribed by WP:PSTS. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to Lquitler's question above, I think the problem lies in what is the intent of a Wikipedia article on a legal topic? On one hand, many laws have effects on society far beyond the law books. An example of this I have in mind is a perennial crank argument that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional because of technicalities whether Ohio (one of the states that ratified the amendment) is legally a state. (I find this point entertaining, & hope that a history of this belief would not consitute orignial research & may never appear in Wikiepdia.) On the other hand -- & far more importantly -- is the article's intent to provide legal advice? In that case, sure it's OR but that is trumped by (wait for it) Wikipedia does not offer legal advice. -- llywrch (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• In legal encyclopedias, the point of an article on a topic -- say, "rights of public school students to publish content in student newspapers" -- is to summarize and synthesize the law (i.e., the constitutional & statutory law & particularly the case law) on a topic. In a legal treatise the author goes a bit further and may draw inferences and even develop what the author sees as underlying principles. In a general encyclopedia, I believe an article would summarize and synthesize the law, avoid doing what the treatise does (which is the original research contribution of the treatise author), and also include history and social context as appropriate. (None of these works would ever presume to give legal advice so we need not even go there.)

At any rate, it's absolutely correct that the primariness or secondariness or whatever-ariness of a source depends on its use and context. In other words, its relationship to the subject at hand. It seems to me that for legal topic Wikipedia articles, and other articles as well, labeling sources as primary/secondary/tertiary is simply one way to get at the core point: That information published in Wikipedia should only be a restatement of information which has been verifiably published elsewhere; the more reliable the source, the better. Enforcing the PS/TS distinction is just going to lead to what, in law, we might call a "mini-trial" -- a secondary argument. If I want to put something in and it's challenged, I can, instead of arguing about the material, argue about whether it is a primary/secondary/tertiary source. (If I ultimately lose, somehow, then I can argue whether it should be an exception.)

It seems to me that the PS/TS material is helpful in some instances but positively unhelpful in others, and I wonder if strengthening the initial statement at the beginning of the section might help this dispute. "Sources may be divided into three basic categories of how they relate to the subject being written about." That suggests that this is an optional way of thinking about things. If this prefatory material were elaborated upon, to explain that the PS/SS/TS distinction may help in thinking through the issue, but if it is not easily and immediately applicable, then it may not be an appropriate model to consider the question.

--Lquilter (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

--Lquilter (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

COGDEN's tag

Let's discuss COGDEN's disputed policy section tag that was apparently created specifically for this dispute and has since been rediercted to a disputed policy tag, which is completely inappropriate. I think Mikka said it best about this tag, I'm searching for that quote now, but essentially if a section of Policy is disputed then it should either be removed or left until consensus is reached for it's removal. Dreadstar † 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not care what tag is on this section, but there is a substantial dispute going on about it right now, and it seems honest to mark that dispute. I really don't give a fuck whether we mark it with an old template, a new template, or what, but marking it is appropriate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's really quite disruptive to keep on adding a tag. All policies and guidelines have disputed sentences or sections, and this particular section has been here for a long time. Disagreements should be discussed here, but not allowed to destabilize the policy. Cogden, I for one don't even understand a lot of what you're arguing, so please find a way to clarify what you're saying. Also, it would be helpful if you'd provide academic sources for your definitions, as it's not clear whether you're inventing them or taking them from another source. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Slim, his definition is drawn from an appropriate source (at least the most common one he uses). However, it's not even a universal definition within its field of origin. The problem with an "academic" definition is that there are several, varying both between and within fields, and that none of them match exactly with the Wikipedia usage (though some could be considered as comprising aspects of our operative definition). Vassyana (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy changes should be discussed first, not made by one person. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar is correct about the tag template. Originally, it was {{disputedtag}}, but I changed it, creating a new tag, because there were some objections to it. The new tag was a compromise, but I agree now that we really should use the standard tag for these situations. COGDEN 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest finding community consensus for any new or existing "dispute tags" before applying one to an Official Policy page. Personally, I don't believe such tags should be used at all on an official policy page - if the content is there, it's policy by consensus - disputed or not, if it's not there by any prior consensus and is disputed, then it should be removed - not tagged. Dreadstar †

Respondint SlimVirgin, the definitions I'm going by are from primary source and secondary source, and there are many academic citations there. COGDEN 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Vassyana, I have not yet seen any reliable source stating that the definitions in the primary source and secondary source articles do not apply in some particular academic field. It's really the same set of definitions everywhere. Some web pages will lump various types of sources together, like diaries and maps, as primary sources, but in an academic article discussing what the terms mean, historiographers, historians, library scientists, and scientists all agree on what the terms mean, and that whether a source is primary or secondary really depends on how you use it. COGDEN 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Rlevse, please read WP:BOLD and WP:EP, which I think are very good ideas. We've tried discussing proposals first then editing, but it never went everywhere because there is always some lone dissenter to any idea, no matter how good. For a while, being bold was getting us somewhere, but we've backslid a little. Maybe it's time to go into protection mode again, where we are forced to duke it out here. I'm open to all options. We can also try mediation again, but that didn't work the first time. This dispute has been going on since July, so I don't think anybody can say that the present version of PSTS represents widespread Wikipedia consensus. That's just not credible anymore. That's why we need the tag, because otherwise, people will see the tag at the top of the article that claims this represents widespread consensus, when it does not. COGDEN 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

When changes are as contentious as these have been, WP:BOLD doesn't really apply, Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes do. A few editors here claim that this policy does not have widespread consensus, others maintain that it does and they have shown proof of consensus. A few disputing editors do not counter prior consensus, a new consensus needs to be found for the proposed changes. We've been round and round this issue too. Dreadstar †

Just a bit of history, the tagging issue has been going on since August, and there’s been no resolution to the issues it raises, nor the inclusion of such a tag on a Policy page such as the one Cogden proposes, this has been a hotly contested issue. The changes to OR that are still under dispute have been discussed since August, with some pointed commentary on the changes here, amongst other things about this ongoing dispute. We need to find a way to bring an end to this by either finding consensus for changes or leaving the policy as it was before the edit war started back in August. Dreadstar † 23:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

This edit summary by FeloniousMonk states part of the case for the removal of the tag perfectly. The tag has long outlived any justification for it, "you've had your chance to make your case. time for you accept that and move on". I suggest you make a solid proposal and put it up for consensus, if you like, but quit edit warring and tagging the section after all these months of getting nowhere. Dreadstar † 23:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The anti-primary-source faction has had its chance to make its arguments over the last four months as well, and consensus has not yet been reached. But so what? Is there a time limit for establishing Consensus? If we can't establish consensus within four months, does controversy magically go away? This is simply a cop out for avoiding discussion. Reaching consensus is hard work, and there are no shortcuts or time limits. COGDEN 00:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about your tag Cogden, not Consensus itself. The quest for consensus is ongoing. Dreadstar † 21:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the tag is a statement that consensus has been reached, since the tag at the beginning of the article claims that "It has wide acceptance among editors." The tag is a temporary way to allow non-consensus language to remain in a policy article. Without the tag, the controversial information needs to be deleted pursuant to WP:POLICY and WP:CONS, which require that the article reflect current widespread Wikipedia practice and consensus. Which do you prefer, a tag or deletion of the PSTS section? COGDEN 10:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: just change the terms primary-->raw and secondary-->interpretive

After a bit of experimentation, here is a proposal that I could almost live with, and it's really a minimal one, but unfortunately it was reverted as kind of a knee-jerk reaction. Maybe that's part my fault for being to bold, but why would this not move us at least 85% of the way toward consensus?:

Sources may be divided into three basic categories of how they relate to the subject being written about. For the purposes of Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, raw, interpretive, and tertiary sources are broadly defined as follows:

• A raw source contains raw facts but no interpretation of those facts. Raw sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the raw source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the raw source. Any interpretation of raw source material requires another reliable source for that interpretation. To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a raw source, that part of the article should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the raw source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the raw source, unless such claims are verifiable from another source.

Examples of raw sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

• An interpretive source draws on raw sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims about raw sources are included in Wikipedia articles, use interpretive sources rather than original analysis by Wikipedia editors.

• A tertiary source is a publication such as an encyclopedia or other compendium that sums up other sources. Many introductory textbooks may also be considered tertiary to the extent they sum up widely accepted results of large amounts of raw and interpretive sources. Tertiary sources can be useful in avoiding original research in topics where there exist very large amounts of raw and/or interpretive sources.

All sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not verifiable. Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims are included in Wikipedia articles, use appropriate sources rather than original analysis by Wikipedia editors.

Frankly, I'd get rid of the "tertiary" section, but I want to make this the most minimal change possible at this point. COGDEN 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with loosing the tertiary section. It may be truth, but there is no need for it in a policy document. It belongs in Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is that you're substituting your own terms (raw and interpretive sources) for terms in common use (primary and secondary sources), and they're not equivalent anyway. A primary source can include interpretive material, for example. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)This only serves to confound and mar the issue further. "Raw" sources are but a subsection of primary sources. For example, the Bible is not a raw source of facts, but it's certainly a primary source. I appreciate the good faith attempt to move forward. However, I don't think using language that either drastically narrows the scope of the definition or is contradictory to the operative definition is going to work. Vassyana (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Raw sources are a subset of primary sources as I understand primary sources. But it seems that the rationale behind this language, back when it was written was directed toward preventing use of raw sources. What the policy really is trying to get at is the use of sources that do not contain within them published interpretive material. The original authors apparently didn't see any difference between raw and primary sources, and apparently thought that anything interpretive was a secondary source. So this is not really a departure from that original intent.

I don't see any philosophical need for us to stick with the terms "primary" and "secondary". The importance is the policy, not the terms we use. Go back and pretent that the PSTS section never existed, and you had never heard of the terms primary source and secondary source. How would you write the policy in your own words? COGDEN 23:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any real support or viable alernatives to change the terminology from “Primary, Secondary and Tertiary”? This has long been discussed, and I think we should try to lock it down now. Personally, I think we should keep the current terms. Dreadstar † 18:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There's clearly no consensus for primary and secondary, but I think we can build consensus aroung other terms such as raw and interpretive. As I see it, nearly everybody opposing the primary-secondary language is receptive to some of the ideas in the PSTS section, but the main problem is that primary source and secondary source are ill-defined in such a way that it creates a whole host of problems. The terms carry too much baggage. If we want the policy to reflect consensus, which I think most of us do, I'm not sure we can get there with the terms primary source and secondary source. It seems like the simplest replacement terms are "raw" and "interpretive". Does anybody actually disagree substantively with the proposal as written above? Or at least not disagree. That could be a basis for consensus, and we could go from there. COGDEN 23:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please build that consensus for the actual terms quickly, this has been an ongoing issue for months and is continuing to drag things down. The current terms (Primary/Secondary/Tertiary) have clear and undeniable prior consensus, so a new consensus will need to be formed to replace them. Are there any other viable alternatives besides "raw" and "interpretive" (which I see have already been opposed above..an opposition which I join, as I prefer the original terms to any I've seen thus far). Let's lay them all out on the table.

The P/S/T language has arguable prior consensus, but very low participation. "In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected." (WP:CONS). Whether or not there ever was consensus, however, is irrelevant because there is no consensus now, and policy pages must reflect current consensus (WP:POLICY).

If the reason you oppose "raw" and "interpretive" is because you prefer the present language, that is not a valid objection. You have to independently oppose "raw" and "interpretive" in their own merits, and actually discuss them, rather than just say "they're different from my own preference, so no deal". COGDEN 20:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the proposal above, I prefer how Vassyana has laid out the terms. Dreadstar † 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need defined terms at all. And there is no need for source typing, because how sources are written by their authors is not as important as how they are used by WP editors. So we should discuss how to use sources in descriptive terms using plain language. See my example in the section below. Dhaluza (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I really like this idea. I think that by scrapping terms and definitions that were developed for a different purpose we're really dealing with our "Idol of the Marketplace" problem (this also parallels some ideas that we raised had in August).. We really have to think here in terms of developing an "encyclopedic method", of employing definitions that are most useful to our context.--Pharos (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would we want to substitute established terms for neologisms? --bainer (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

which "established terms" would those be? :) -- Fullstop (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Because we are dealing with novel concepts and processes that are quite different from those involved in the historical method (for which the original concepts were developed). We have never really used these terms under their proper definitions, anyway, because our reasons for distinguishing three classes of sources comes from attempting to solve a rather different problem.--Pharos (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, we might want to replace "tertiary source" with something like "summarizing source" while we're at it.--Pharos (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been ignoring this thread, in the hope it would just go away, but so far, that hasn't happened. I object to the term "raw". One important meaning of raw information is information just as it appears in whatever medium it first appears. Very often, such information is processed in very minimal ways, such as editing out data from sensors that are obviously defective, removing chaff from punch-card ballots, and the like. The result of such minimal processing isn't raw any more, but it isn't interpreted either. I think this meaning of "raw" would introduce a great deal of worthess argument, so the word should be avoided. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Every word in the English language is going to have some degree of ambiguity. The point is that "primary source" is highly ambiguous, and the academic definition is quite likely to be confused with our specialized usage on Wikipedia, because they're similar in broad strokes, and topics in the Humanities can get fuzzy anyway. The use of "raw" under the definition of "experimental data to which computerized post-processing has not yet been applied" is not even a Humanities concept, and is very unlikely to cause serious confusion (and if it ever did, that confusion could be very easily corrected). And the term is actually "raw source", which as a clear neologism has a very specific definition, and is indeed something other than the mere adjective "raw".--Pharos (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not limited to articles about the humanities. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. But the writing of Wikipedia (the collating of sources etc.) is purely a Humanities process, no matter what the article subject is.--Pharos (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. And even writing Wikipedia articles is a humanities process, editors of articles on, for example, science, engineering, or computers will often have backgrounds in those fields, and will tend to interpret words in policies in light of their backgrounds. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that people, no matter what their background is, will tend to read the wording of the policy in the context in which it is presented, i.e. basically a non-scientific context. That said, I would support adding a clarification that the narrow "experimental data to which computerized post-processing has not yet been applied" meaning of "raw" is not intended. It will be a lot easier IMO to explain away this slight ambiguity (because it is more clear-cut), than to explain away the other one, which has only lead to reams of confused talk page discussions.--Pharos (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Gerry Ashton, maybe there's another term to use instead of raw, like uninterpreted. That would leave no gaps: either a source or part of a source is interpreted or uninterpreted. Much better than primary vs. secondary, which are not mutually exclusive, and in fact every significant secondary source is also primary, and most primary sources are also secondary. COGDEN 10:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually find this superior to your first proposal, since we're down to only one new concept: "interpretive" vs. "uninterpretive".--Pharos (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not in favour of this proposed change. I have nothing to add to the arguments already presented, but I do not want anyone to introduce the change by arguing that silence means there is consensus for the change. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so we know, which camp are you in, (1) the "raw is not inclusive enough" camp, (2) the "we should use established terms like primary source and secondary source because making up terminology for Wikipedia purposes is a bad thing" camp, or (3) the "I prefer another version to this one, but don't really have any actual arguments against this version" camp? Knowing this would be helpful in determining where the actual consensus lies, if there is one. COGDEN 11:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You proposed a change at the start of this section I am not in favour of that change and I am bored with the interminable arguments you are advancing for what seems to me to be no discernible improvement to the policy. I would be much happier using the time I spend reading this page editing and discussing improvements to articles, but I do not want to turn round and find that the legs have been kicked out from under this policy while I was looking elsewhere. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so perhaps you think this is a superficial change. Let me explain to you why I think this is a substantive change of policy worth pursuing. The guidelines, as currently written, are more-or-less OK, but problems arise when they are interpreted in terms of the standard academic definitions of "primary source" and "secondary source". The concepts of "primary source" and "secondary source" were invented by historians to execute the historical method, and by continuing to use them I feel we're dragging along decades and decades of scholarly baggage that is not at all relevant to the art of encyclopedia-writing. Half of the back-and-forth on these policy pages, I'm convinced, can be attributed to such linguistic baggage.--Pharos (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

For clarity

Is it correct that this is basically about the definition of the word "Primary source"?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple. :-P Vassyana (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend reviewing the following to get a better idea of the long-running discussion here:

• Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive26#Alternative_proposals:_straw_poll.
• Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive25#Goals
• Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive24#Attempt_to_address_the_new_opposition
• Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive24#Just_to_be_clear:-definition_of_primary_and_secondary_sources
• Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive23#Back_to_the_question_of_what_policy_should_be
• Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive23#Refocusing_on_the_source_discussion
• Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive23#Why_we_DO_need_some_sort_of_a_statement_on_primary_sources_usage
• Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive22#Before_we_unprotect_the_page
• Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive22#Attention_newcomers_to_this_article

Vassyana (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's very complex, like Vassyana said, but biggest bullet-points as I see them are:

• The definition of primary source and secondary source (made up or standard academic);
• Whether those terms should be used in policy, or whether they are too high-falutin' and ambiguous;
• When, if ever, primary/raw/otherwise-bad sources should be prohibited/discouraged and when if ever, they should be mandatory/encouraged;
• Whether any of this belongs in No original research at all, or whether this is a Verifiability issue; and
• Whether the section needs to reflect current Consensus or whether it can remain unchanged by virtue of inertia based on apparent past consensus.

COGDEN 23:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue of inertia and consensus for Policy pages was discussed in this section, which contains some compelling comments on this subject. I think Policy pages need to have strong Consensus to change prior consensus, and that policy pages need inertia to avoid chaos from constant changes becase an editor or small group of editors don't believe in the prior consensus - yet do not have consensus for their proposals, but they believe they can change or remove the material they dispute anyway. Dreadstar † 23:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what a lot of people think, but that's not actually true, based on what the policy articles say. There is no "intertia" that keeps a non-consensus policy section active even though consensus in favor of that section is demonstrably lost. According to WP:POLICY, "Wikipedia polices may change as consensus changes, but policy and guideline pages must reflect the present consensus and practice." According to WP:CONS, "A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision." Moreover, "In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected."

So really, the choice here is not between keeping PSTS vs. replacing PSTS, but between deleting PSTS and replacing PSTS. Either way, we have to end up with something with strong consensus. If that means "no consensus policy", that's what we'll have to accept, according to present policy. COGDEN 00:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are mistaken. There is no present consensus for changes, so the prior consensus is what we go by. There is no reason to delete PSTS, there is strong support for that section now, all we're doing is attempting to rewrite it for clarity. The original group is not blocking your changes, the lack of consensus for your changes is. Accept that and move on. I'm not going to go round with you again, or repeat again the need for inertia in Policy articles, this is the same tune you've been playing for months on end. Move on and find consensus for your proposals. Dreadstar † 01:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a novel concept of Consensus on WP. If that were true, consensus could be easily usurped by simply jealously defending an inaccurate transcription of actual consensus. By refusing to consent to change, all progress could then be indefinitely blocked. That is why the Consensus policy wisely allows consensus to change, and that policy must reflect current consensus, not a perception of past consensus. Naturally policy should not change on a whim, but it does change over time, and must be allowed to continue to change over time. Dhaluza (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No one is refusing consent to change. Vassyana's proposal is making clear progress. What is being strongly disputed by many editors are the extreme changes that have been proposed by Cogden, who apparently would like to delete PSTS in its entirety because it's 'unnecessary', something I cannot agree with. That's the only novelty here, Dhaluza - the deletion or dilution of long-standing policy without having a consensus for such actions to be taken. What I have described is how Wikipedia:Consensus works. And no, “simply jealously defending an inaccurate transcription of actual consensus" is not what is happening here, nor is it ever going to trump a new consensus, that's a total distortion of what has been said about prior consensus. We cannot say that because a few editors disagree with content that was put into place with consensus that the consensus and the content it relates to are no longer valid - that would lead to chaos and ever changing Policy, if we were even able to establish a stable policy under those conditions. Dreadstar † 16:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You are taking my hypothetical comments literally. I was not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out that your argument that there must be consensus for change is wrong. There must be consensus, period. Dhaluza (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, my statement is correct. There must consensus for a change to content that has been long-standing policy by consensus. You must find consensus for your changes, period. I also do not see the lack of current consensus for it to remain - even though I believe that is backwards. We have a few editors disputing it, that's all. In any case, this is the same sorry discussion about consensus that we've been going around with for months. Find new consensus for your changes, period. Dreadstar † 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If the philosophy you are stating here is actually Wikipedia practice and consensus, you should take this up with WP:POLICY and WP:CONS, which contradict you. Of course, according to your policy, you'd have to build an independent consensus to change WP:POLICY and WP:CONS, which you aren't going to get. Do you see the paradox of your position? And do you see why it is unworkable? COGDEN 10:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar is wrong that I think PSTS should be deleted because it is "unnecessary". First, I don't think it should be deleted, just made to conform with present Wikipedia practice. But if editors block such current-practice-conforming changes, the only option is to delete the section. No other possibility will leave the policy page in a state of conformance with WP:POLICY and WP:CONS.

Second, it's not because it is unnecessary, it's because the present PSTS language does not conform to actual, widespread Wikipedia practice, and thus is in violation of WP:POLICY. It's some person's good faith effort to distinguish between "raw" and "interpretive" sources, which might reflect actual Wikipedia practice; however, the section has morphed into a philosophical treatise against primary sources, which it was never intended to be. It is an attempt to get people to stop using primary sources--to change widespread practice--something which policy pages cannot do. You change widespread Wikipedia practice first, then you write the policy. COGDEN 21:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're just complaining about this sentence in the policy: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Is that right?  —SMALLJIM  21:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, that's it in a nutshell, Smalljim... Dreadstar † 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar, you have been sort of out of the loop for a while, and probably are not fully aware of all the issues we've been discussing for the last four months. There are several issues with the current language, the most significant problems being in the following phrases:

• "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source";
• "the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge";
• "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source, unless such claims are verifiable from another source"; and
• The current "examples" of "primary" sources; and
• "Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims about primary sources are included in Wikipedia articles, use secondary sources rather than original analysis by Wikipedia editors"

COGDEN 11:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I think policy pages can change widespread practice. Also, just because something is being done in a widespread manner, does not mean that the practice should become policy. Policy should dictate practice, not the other way around. Say for instance it becomes widespread practice to add libelous material to Biographies of living persons, should the policy change to reflect that new practice? No way. I know it's an extreme example, and one that has special circumstances, but I believe it makes the point - practice should follow policy, not the other way around. Practice can guide policy, but it must not dictate policy so that policy merely becomes a tool of the majority or the most vocal. There are plenty of times when Policy must rise above practice and dictate the proper path to take.

Additionally, where is the widespread practice that violates the limitations on the use of Primary sources that makes the PSTS so far off the mark? Where is all this going on about having Wikipedia articles completely rely on Primary sources with only limited or no use of Secondary sources? How is the current wording so bad that it need to be removed or seriously throttled back? I've quoted directly from policy above, and I don't see what your argument really is. And just because something is in widespread use doens't make it the right use. Policy should still dictate the right way to do things, not become muddled beause some or many aren't following policy. Having policy follow practice is just classic tail wagging the dog. There has to be a well thought-out mixture of sensible Policy dictating practice, and while there should be policy that is based on good practices, policy should never just blindly follow widespread practice.

And Cogden, I was merely quoting your own words, where you stated, "Personally, if I had my way, I'd just blank the section. It doesn't reflect consensus, and is unnecessary. It looks like you were talking about the PSTS section, is that not the case? Dreadstar † 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar, I'd take a look at WP:POLICY, which apparently you disagree with. WP:POLICY states that

"The purpose of a written policy or guideline is to record clearly what has evolved as communal consensus in actual practice, rather than to lead editors prescriptively toward a given result. Wikipedia polices may change as consensus changes, but policy and guideline pages must reflect the present consensus and practice."

Are you arguing that the WP:POLICY article should be changed? If so, I'd challenge that policy. Unfortunately, though, your position would make that difficult, since you apparently believe, contrary to WP:CONS, that there is required a "consensus to change policy", rather than "consensus to the policy, period". Unless you plan to challenge the rule, I would invite you to join many of us in enforcing WP:POLICY, and ensuring that the WP:NOR page reflects current, actual practice, without trying to lead editors. COGDEN 11:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As to your question about "where is the widespread practice that violates the limitations on the use of Primary sources that makes the PSTS so far off the mark?", here are some of the answers we've been discussing during the last four months:

• Highly technical citations in math, science, and philosophy articles cannot be—and never have been required to be— "easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialized knowledge";
• Citations to primary sources are not, and never have been, rare or disfavored, but have been highly encouraged and honored with featured status;
• Editors do not routinely think about the primariness or secondariness of sources, except perhaps to favor primary sources like some of the more historically-trained editors have been taught in school, which is a good practice and makes better articles more useful to readers and more likely to be featured;
• Works of fiction are cited and treated in a manner inconsistent with PSTS.
• The present PSTS language creates verifiability requirements beyond and inconsistent with those of WP:V, which most editors primarily rely on to judge the verifiability of sources.

COGDEN 11:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting a proposal

User:Vassyana/NOR 002 was suggested and repeatedly advertised on RfC and the village pump. It was one of the least controversial and most supported (including people on "both sides) of the various serious proposals to change PSTS. This suggests it may be worth revisiting it, even if to understand what worked "better" about it so we can create another draft. I'd like to review the comments made about it and see if we can adjust it sufficiently for use. Let's see what we can do to address any concerns, so we can move forward.

Support (some supporters included more than one):

• There was support based on the draft being a reasonable clarification.
• There was support based on the proposal better reflecting practice.
• There was support based on the draft being a reasonable compromise.
• There was support based on the proposal being a step in the correct direction.

Neutral:

• One person changed from opposition to neutrality after their concerns were addressed.

Opposition:

• There was opposition based on a strong opposition to PSTS, without feedback on the draft.
• There was opposition based on the presence of the source-typing caveat and the conflation of secondary and tertiary sources.
• One person opposed without explanation or feedback on the proposal.
• One person stated the status quo is clearer, without further explanation or feedback.
• One person expressed the draft is wordy and hard to follow, and objected to a requirement for explicit in-text attribution of primary sources.

Obviously, some positions cannot be accommodated due to a lack of feedback and/or explanation. However, I am going to endeavor to revise the draft accordingly to the reasonable opposition. The conflation of secondary and tertiary was founded in a concern that some summary sources (like textbooks) are exceptional sources and that this should be noted. The draft includes such language. There was less opposition to the caveat as a footnote, so I've moved it to such a format. I've moved a few other side comments and examples to footnotes as well, to help shorten/clarify the text. I've removed a chunk of text that may be better suited to another part of the policy. I've revised some of the language for clarity. (Additional comment) I also moved secondary before primary, because some concern was voiced about secondary sources being mentioned before their definition.

Regarding the requirement for explicit in-text attribution, I'm unsure of what other compromise I can make for this issue. Some expressed deep concern with primary sources being used in such a way at all, others argue that perfectly usable primary sources make such claims. The latter was accommodated with clear language permitting the use of such claims, but former accommodated with a requirement for blatant in-text attribution. If someone has a better compromise between the two extremes, it would be welcomed.

Please review the altered proposal. Let me know what you think. Vassyana (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Vassyana. The lead of the section could benefit from better grammar and simpler wording, but overall I see this as a good summary that may be acceptable to all involved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Revised/simplified the lede language. Anything else that can be tweaked? Anything particularly flawed or lacking about it? Any additional concerns from the long long discussion here that you think could be accommodated? Vassyana (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any significant problems. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, everything after (2) is still an overly strong version of the advice. Not wrong, as such, but overly restrictive, and without enough awareness that the rules do not apply in many circumstances. The wording SV proposed above about good judgment and the rewording of your suggestion below both open the door to the possibility of grey area in a way that the tail end of this doesn't.

That said, I love everything before (2), particularly the abandonment of the secondary/tertiary distinction. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree it is one of the more restrictive parts of the proposal, largely because it adheres closely to the current policy. I included language about explicit attribution for analytic et al claims from primary sources and about primary sources in secondary sources, because everyone can agree that both practices (as such) are OK. I will continue to think about how that portion can be improved and revised to provide an acceptable compromise for the policy editors and better reflect practice. However, I think any significant departure from that model/advice is really another step in and of itself (much like a change of terminology would be). Thanks for the feedback! Vassyana (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need a significant departure from that model... I think, actually, a big part of it is that that portion is best considered as advice and a guideline, unlike the rest of NOR - it's a small bit of not-quite-policy in a policy document. And thus some hedging to reflect that is in order. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pondering this and if I think of a good solution, I'll share *chuckle*. If you have any suggestions about how to alter the wording, they would be welcome. Vassyana (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent proposal, Vassyana. I think it does a very good job of addressing a lot of the concerns expressed about the current version and it keeps the core of the policy intact. I like it. Dreadstar † 17:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I like it too, particularly the way you have changed the emphasis of the section from the sources themselves to the purpose of the section, thereby better integrating it into the policy. I assume it would be under a heading of "Types of sources" or similar? A minor point, but perhaps the first sentence could be simplified to something like "To help identify and avoid original research, this section broadly defines primary and secondary sources." I found the reference to a tool unnecessary and slightly confusing: I couldn't tell if it is the section or the collective primary and secondary sources that is meant to be the tool.

Sorry for popping up here suddenly, by the way. You haven't seen me, but I've been working my way through this page and trying to follow its convoluted discussions for a couple of weeks. (Only a couple of weeks!) This is the first time I've felt able to contribute something. Hope I'm not making a total ass of myself!  —SMALLJIM  21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No apologies needed. I took your helpful suggestion for rewording. Are there are problematic phrasings? Any notable flaws (in general) in the draft? Vassyana (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Here are my comments on the proposal:

1. It's better than what we have now, and I support any change that moves in the right direction, with the proviso that it is not the final resting place.
2. Why keep the terms primary and secondary if we are now entirely divorced from the academic terms primary source and secondary source and from the concepts of "primariness" or "secondariness"? Why not combine my proposal with yours and use the terms raw and interpretive, and then just define them how we want? In fact, I notice you use the term "raw" in the definition of primary source. The beauty of using the term "raw source" is you can define it however you want, and don't have to worry about anomalies like peer-reviewed articles being secondary sources. They'll just be "interpretive sources", which makes perfect sense.
3. You are keeping the "reasonable, educated person" standard of super-verifiability for "primary" sources. I can see the benefit of an extra layer of verifiability for "raw" sources, but not in "interpretive" sources that are also primary sources, such as mathematical and philosophical works. We don't want editors interpreting raw data, but we do want them relying on technical primary sources like Principia Mathematica, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and Of Grammatology.
4. The requirement for finding an explicit reference in the primary source for any interpretive statement contradicts WP:V, which does not require citation to any source when you make claims that nobody would dispute, such as "The book has 100 pages". You won't find that statement explicitly stated in the work, but so what? If you replaced "primary" with "raw", you would not even need this requirement because, by definition, raw sources have no interpretations to which you can cite, explicitly or otherwise.

COGDEN 02:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I really think tackling terminology would be a whole proposal unto itself. I may not necessarily agree with your word choice, but you know I support a change in terms nonetheless. (My desire for different terms is due to the myriad definitions of PSTS and the resulting complications due to the law of primacy.) I think the wording will take a lot of time and effort to address, but it would be for the best in the end. After we get through this round of proposals, I'd be glad to work with you to try and work out a proposal for using different terminology.

I think narrowing the scope to purely "raw" sources is a significant change in and of itself. As such, it's another thing that should be addressed separately. I also believe it would remove many sources (from the "primary" category) that are a cause of concern in relation to NOR (such as historical and religious texts).

Point taken. I have added a footnote directing the reader to WP:V#Burden of evidence.

Thanks for the support and feedback. Are there other flaws in the draft that can be addressed? Is any of the wording problematic? Vassyana (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you and I are that far apart, if we can use the right terminology. I also don't think changing the definition to "raw" (or some other similar term) is much of a change at all. I think that is exactly what the original author of this language intended, as evidenced by some of the early definitions of "primary source". The idea was that "primary" sources were those sources (or parts of sources) that had no analysis or interpretation. It was to prevent people from going to a chemistry article and interpreting the raw data, but ignoring the original author's interpretation of that data and instead inserting their own crackpot theory about the data. This is was Jimbo was concerned about, as well. This is not really a change, just a return to fundamentals. COGDEN 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I also believe we're not that far apart. However, I must note that Jimbo did agree ("completely") that (at least in historical topics) even accurate citation of primary sources can produce a novel synthesis and that Wikipedia is ill-equipped to review such usage.[1] Vassyana (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo was talking about taking the data from the primary sources to support a novel crackpot theory. He never opposed the use of primary sources; in fact, he once spoke with approval in the publication of interpretative scientific theories in "traditional primary sources", followed by direct citation in Wikipedia. It was never the primariness of the source that was the problem—it was the fact that the theories were being conjured up by the editor, independently of how the original primary source scientist interpreted the data. COGDEN 11:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Any further comments on this revised draft? Not to jinx things, but I'm quite surprised at the relative silence. Vassyana (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated several months ago during other discussions on this subject, when asked how the 'controversial' section was added, the point was made that silence was implicit acceptance, so the 5 or 6 involved in it (adding the controversial part) at that time argue that consensus was reached. I guess that same can easily be assumed here, with far more than 5 or 6 people involved. wbfergus ^Talk 11:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with making the edit, although I fear that no matter what we do, you will likely find that people here are very willing to violate WP:OWN and WP:CONS ("The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision"). WP:CONS states that "In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected." Your draft does not have much participation, and not yet consensus, but it's a move in that direction, and should not be reverted in a knee-jerk manner. Your draft probably has better consensus than the language there now, and I think anyone that reverts it to the present language should have a damn good reason. COGDEN 11:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's been a couple RfCs, multiple listings on the village pump, lots of opinions voiced, etc. I honestly think the revised draft accommodates the concerns voiced on the last version, as best as I know how. Of course, I'm open to revision suggestions. :) There's a note about using summary (essentially tertiary) sources to accommodate the only clear concern about conflating secondary and tertiary. I moved the caveat to footnote, per the clearest/strongest objector to that language. I've reordered it, moved some text to footnotes and simplified the main text, to help address the criticisms regarding complexity and clarity. There's still some sticky points to work through, but progress is progress. At the least, it seems like the closest thing to a consensus compromise we've been able to reach in several months of discussion. I'll make the change and see what happens. Vassyana (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that experiment lasted less than ten minutes. It was reverted by someone who hasn't bothered to comment during any of the times that any version of this draft was posted for discussion. I'm not going to kneejerk revert, but I would like to make it very clear that I think it is utter bullshit that is was reverted by someone who cannot not be bothered to comment during the multiple copious opportunities to voice opposition. Unless the opposition is voiced and well-reasoned, I will restore the compromise draft tomorrow. Vassyana (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me and I totally support you and your position, along with agreeing entirely with your statements. wbfergus ^Talk 13:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It was reverted again by another person who has not commented on this draft. They commented on the last proposal, and some of their concerns are among those addressed. However, they have declined to make a substantive objection to this version and in the last discussion failed to substantiate their objections. As such, I've undone their invalid reversion. Vassyana (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I object to the proposal because it is not as clear as the present version about when it is referring to material from an outside source, and when it is referring to material in a Wikipedia article. I also strongly object to the term third party. That term means, for example, that the publications of the National Institute of Standards and Technology the Bell Labs Technical Journal are usually not secondary sources, because the organizations often do not have a third-party relationship to the topic of the article. That's just wrong. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea at all how you are drawing the first conclusion. It pretty clear talks about article claims and sources. Could you point out a few examples? The term "third party" is common terminology in policy. However, would "independent" be a better synonym? Vassyana (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, "independent" is only slightly better than "third party". A source that draws on primary sources is a secondary source, whether it's independent or not. I'll address the question about which material is being referred to in a separate post. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

After re-reading, I see that I was thinking of a different version of the policy that was vague about whether it was discussing Wikipedia articles or outside sources. However, I did find one passage that I don't understand: "Of course, primary sources may be used freely as they are used in reliable publications. In that instance, an editor would be relying on a reliable secondary reference to present, analyze and/or interpret a primary source." --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed "third party".[2]

For the confusing passage, I've tried clarifying the language.[3] Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an improvement. At this time, I'm not expressing a preference for either the present policy or Vassyana's proposal. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good deal. Thanks for the feedback. If you note anything else "off" about it, please let me know. Vassyana (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The only voiced opposition since the revert has been addressed, as noted above. As such, I am replacing the section again, as I noted above. Vassyana (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to denigrate your changes, but I feel I must point out that the link to secondary sources in WP:N's "This page in a nutshell" is now broken, as well as another link to it lower down that page. I guess that's not going to be the only page. I'm not sure if this is a problem, or if it's something that gets fixed if the change sticks.  —SMALLJIM  14:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a span id to ensure that link works. If the change sticks, the links can be corrected on the Wikipedia: space pages. Thanks for pointing that out. Vassyana (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that quick fix! —SMALLJIM 

I'm really sorry to query this now - I know I should have done so much earlier, but I was distracted. I'm thinking of the average editor coming here and reading this:

• "Article claims that rely on a primary source should..."

What are article claims - is it a techical term? Wouldn't statements in articles be clearer?

• "...(1) only report the content of the source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, ..." (my italics)

To me this sounds like it's the accuracy of the source's content that we're saying should be verifiable, but it should be the accuracy of what the article states, I think.

• "...and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims unless explicitly attributed in-text to the source." (my italics)

That end part isn't perhaps as clear as it might be. I think you've pushed together two separate rules: 1. don't make those sort of claims unless the source does, and 2. if the source does, then explicitly attribute. Is that right? A lot of thought in a few words! I'd prefer to use a few more words for clarity.

Please do tell me if I'm not making sense.  —SMALLJIM  16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tried addressing the first two by revising the language used. The third was an admittedly clumsy compromise and I've replaced it with the language used in the existing version. Vassyana (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Using sources

I propose adding the following to a section called "Using sources" immediately below the "Reliable sources" section:

Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. Article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, nor on passing comments, even if the source is especially reliable. Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references are cited in context and on topic.

I don't think any of this is controversial and I believe it reflects what most people have voiced about sources and original research. Of course, I could be wrong, so let us know what you think. :o) Vassyana (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Text struck. See below. -- Text revised based on Fullstop's feedback.[4] -- Struck text removed.[5] -- Overt --> evident. -- Minor wording change[6]

Alternate, with revised version of struck text (11:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)). Italics are to note the additional text, nor for "live" use:

Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. Article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, nor on passing comments, even if the source is especially reliable. Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. When possible, cite only passages from the central topic of the source. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). It is important that references are cited in context and on topic.

I've revised the text based upon Fullstop's feedback and looking towards a bit more simplification. I have also removed the struck text and provided an alternate reading with revised versions of the struck text. How are the revisions looking? Which version is preferable (if either)? Vassyana (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I think this is an accurate statement of current practice and good guidance for editors not familiar with choosing the best sources to support their claims. Something like this would be a positive addition to the policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl, would you still support the shortened version? Vassyana (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Shorter policies are more likely to be read. The proposed passage is a mixture of NOR policy and advise about what portion of a source is most reliable, which probably belongs in WP:RS. The advice that does not pertain to NOR makes the article longer. It also makes the definition of NOR fuzzier (as if it isn't bad enough already); it tends to make NOR a synonym for sloppy writing. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've crossed-out the text that could be seen as more general advice. The remainder directly relates to original research. Vassyana (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Without the that sentence, I think this is a valuable addition and consistent with current understanding and practice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In the end, the OR policy is intertwined with the verifiability and reliable sources policies, so some similarity is unavoidable. The shorter version is still accurate. The crossed-out versions are helpful, I think. They explain some of the criteria that are used in practice, in real articles, to decide which claims can be attributed to which sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Yep. Good job Vassyana. This is precisely the relationship of OR to sources. Nothing more. Nothing less.

For stylistic reasons (see following notes) I would write it as follows (sentence for sentence):

Statements in a Wikipedia article must be verifiable from the sources cited.

Avoid transmitting a passing comment or ambiguous sentence (open to interpretation) even when the source is a reliable source.

<strike third sentence since folded into second>

Drawing own conclusions or extrapolating a position is original research regardless of the type of source.

Where possible, use only those statements in the source that deal directly with the subject (being written for?).

A summary of an extended discussion must reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s).

Sources must be cited in context and on topic.
(alternatively: A source statement must have the same context and topic as the Wikipedia statement that uses that source.)

Notes:

I've switched from passive to active voice (eg "Claims left open" -> "Claims open") and avoided nested conditionals, etc.

I've avoided the word "claims" in favor of explicit mention of whether we mean source or target. This is ambiguous in the original, Eg. In sentence 3,4,5 its source while in 1,2 its target. Also "claims" sounds a little pejorative to me.

The word "transmitting" in sentence two should be replaced. I couldn't think of a better word.

The "even" clause that appears in sentence #2 is probably superfluous (ideally, all used sources are reliable). I've retained it anyway.

I'm not sure what "central topic of the work" in sentence #5 refers to (source or target), thus my "(being written for?)" in parenthesis.

Comments? -- Fullstop (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've matched struck out sentences now. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've revised the language somewhat in light of your comments. What do you think? Vassyana (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I disliked the phrasing of "overt conclusions" in the first, but most of my concerns are well addressed by the rephrasing in the second version, and I support it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite follow - both include the word 'overt'. The motivation for it is that the wording becomes too strict if it is replaced by 'stated' and too weak if it is replaced by 'obvious' or 'implicit'. If you can think of another word that fits better, that would be fine. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ack, sorry - I missed that the "overt conclusions" sentence had survived. I would like to lose this sentence. I think it closes off too much. To my mind, there are three (very poorly defined) types of conclusion we can have in a source - overt, implicit, and, let's say, subtle/tenuous/extended/whatever. Overt, obviously, are OK. The latter category seem to me what we want to avoid. But I think implicit ones are also important, and, while not always acceptable, certainly not always wrong on the face of it either. (I'm using "implicit" here to refer, essentially, to obvious conclusions that the reader is meant to draw.) I don't know how better to phrase the sentence, and I'm inclined to simply remove it- I think the rest of the paragraph stands well on its own, and that the sentence is somewhat disposable within it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, what about "evident" in place of "overt"? I think it's neutral enough to cover the acceptable spectrum of use, but still conveys the right idea. Vassyana (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Evident works great. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Change made. Anything else that can be tweaked or improved that you see off-hand? Vassyana (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't incongruent be incongruous? Or if you really do mean incongruent (is there a fine distinction in meaning?), perhaps choose another word, as it's not as clear as it might be.  —SMALLJIM  14:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose "variant" or "discrepant" could be used instead of "incongruent". Any reasonable synonym indicating passages that are self-contradicting and/or dissonant with the overall tone/claims of a reference would suffice. Vassyana (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

After a bit of research I thought you were using this meaning of "incongruent", though I'm not sure now. Anyway based on the assumption (hope?) that I'm no dumber than the majority of WP editors, a simpler way of phrasing that concept should be used so that everyone can understand. Sorry, but "variant" or "discrepant" are not clearer, IMHO. It's important that all people who will be pointed to the page can easily understand it.  —SMALLJIM  17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, "inconsistent"? I think it's a simpler word and still conveys the general idea. What do you think? Vassyana (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Solution: replace "passing" with "incidental", then drop the comma before "or" and switch word order around to place "incongruous" last.

The sentence then reads:

Article statements should not rely on unclear, incidental or incongruous comments, even if the source is especially reliable.

Reason:

An incongruous/incongruent comment is a comment that is at odds with something. The unspecified "something" is the problem here, but is really only obvious because "incongruent" is immediately followed by a <comma> <adverb/adjective> <subject>

In the form it appears now, the clause with incongruous/incongruent needs a "with."

This can be made evident by replacing "incongruent" with a synonym: e.g. "... incompatible with ...," "... in disharmony with ...," "... in disagreement with ...," "... at variance with ...," "... at odds with ..." etc.

The rest is fine.

-- Fullstop (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Not sure now about the apparent emphasis given to "comments". So what about something like:

"==Using sources==

Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. Statements made in articles should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on incidental comments in those references, even if the source is especially reliable. …"

or even, reorganising a little:

"==Using sources==

The references cited in an article must verify the statements made in that article. However, these statements must not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages in the references or on incidental comments in them, even if the source is especially reliable. …"

(but maybe that's changing too much)  —SMALLJIM  20:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've revised the wording accordingly. Vassyana (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A version of this "Using sources" passage has just been added to the policy. I object to the sentence "Article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, nor on passing comments, even if the source is especially reliable." This sentence is about the reliability of the source, not whether the editor performed original research when he/she included information from the source in a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, if an editor argues on the talk page that information from the source should be excluded, the editor is making an interpretation of the source, and deciding that certain passages in the source are unclear or inconsistent, or that the author regarded certain statements as merely passing comments. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliability and verifiability are directly related to original research. For example, unverifiable and original research are close cousins, if not synonyms. Relying on unclear, inconsistent and/or passing statements to support clear article statements is almost certainly original research. I really don't think that's an unusual or controversial train of thought. Also, I'm unsure what you intend to imply by your closing statement. It sounds like a normal application of editorial discretion and local consensus to me. Vassyana (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried for a minute to rephrase the sentence, but didn't quite get it. I'm sure some rewording can be found that explains better how the issue is related to OR vis-a-vis RS. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you come up with something, please let us know. :) I know from my experience in making proposals and trying to find areas of agreement & compromise that the devil is in the wording and phrases chosen. I honestly don't understand how the statement is particularly unclear/problematic, but if you have some idea of how it's weak, I would appreciate the explanation so I can try modifying the wording accordingly. Vassyana (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Turning unclear statements into clear statements is original research. Quoting an unclear statement verbatim might be useful to show that confusion exists on a particular topic. It might be useful to use even a passing comment, if the writer who made the passing comment is known to be an expert in that field. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Using an unclear statement for that purpose would most certainly be original research. The proper way to show confusion exists for a particular topic would be to preferably cite a source detailing the confusion, or to simply follow normal NPOV practice and report the conflicting or differing accounts of the matter. I can imagine that in some rare cases that passing comments may be useful and appropriate. However, in the vast majority of cases I have seen and could conceive of, it is far more likely that relying on passing comments will present a distorted view of the subject not truly reflective of the sources (original research). Vassyana (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• In response to Gerry's observation that (with the "even..." clause) "the sentence [becomes] about the reliability of the source"...

I have to agree here. The "even if the source is especially reliable" doesn't actually contribute anything to the spirit of what precedes it. At least as I read it. So, the "even" clause might just as well be dropped. "Article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, nor on passing comments" is sufficient.

• In response to "might be useful to use even a passing comment"...

A passing comment might be useful but it would always be OR. A passing comment is by definition incidental, i.e. not on topic. Even so, such a reference would not violate "should not rely" would it? The "should" pretty much flags that sentence as a guideline and not as a hard-and-fast rule.

-- Fullstop (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

When a reliable source contains a statement, it is not original research to use that statement in Wikipedia, unless the editor does something to change the meaning of the statement from what it meant in the reliable source. Such unacceptable changes could include rephrasing the statement to make it more more (or less) definite than it was in the original source, or using it in a different context such that the meaning changes. For example, if author A wrote that celebrity C received cocaine in connection with eye surgery (a legitimate medical use of cocaine), and a Wikipedia editor wrote that celebrity C received cocaine in an article about celebrity drug abuse, that would be OR, and violate a score of other rules too. But if the statement were used in Wikipedia in a way that it has the same meaning as in the original source, it's OK. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Yes! Yes! We're perfectly in agreement here. And an excellent example of out-of-context OR, btw. :)

My point with the "passing comment" was that incidental comments are - by definition - not really relevant to what the author is actually talking about. Ergo, they have no context. Passing comments - particularly when they snipe at colleagues - are lovely to read, but they rarely contribute anything of substance. When they are underhanded, they aren't even usable to demonstrate critique. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to invent an acceptable use of a passing comment. Computer scientist X writes, in a reliable source, about the origin of computer the computer language ROTBOL. He mentions in passing that he helped computer scientist Y to find a conference room because Y became blind at the age of 50. A Wikipedia editor includes this in a biography of Y. The information has the same meaning in the reliable source, and in the Wikipedia biography article, so it's OK. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Original research is not judged purely on a statement by statement basis. One can stick to the sources on a statement by statement basis and still end up with a result that provides a synthesis or implied view that does not accurately reflect the references as a whole.

For example, one could easily multiple statements in the Bible that state that one should follow the example of, or obey the statements of, apostles. One could then follow that with multiple biblical references stating that Judas Iscariot was an apostle. Then, that could be followed by a citation to Judas' betrayal of Christ and suicide.

Even without providing additional commentary or going beyond the source in individual statements, a picture is woven that the Bible says we should follow the example of Judas Iscariot in his betrayal and suicide. To be sure, this type of synthesis can be done simply by cherrypicking sources. Context as a broader whole needs to be considered to identify whether it is a prohibited synthesis and it is context that is lacking with incidental comments.

To be sure, there are probably some cases where passing comments are uncontroversial and the context is clear. However, this is a very small minority of such statements, simply by their nature. As with all guidance, which cases are acceptable in practice needs to be determined by editorial discretion and local consensus. Vassyana (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a policy. A flat requirement in this policy must not exclude any legitimate source. A requirement that usually applies, but has some exceptions, should be phrased accordingly. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Should" seemed conditional enough to me, but I've added the word "generally" (in the "live" version) to more clearly indicate that there are some legitimate exceptions. Vassyana (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Using the "long" version

Would there be an objection to adding the two additional sentences from the longer version? My reasoning for their inclusion:

“ When possible, cite only passages from the central topic of the source. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). ”

These statements provide advice that is plainly sensible to help avoid misrepresenting the subject. I think we can all agree that misrepresentation is original research (since such a distortion does not accurately reflect the sources). Comments? Vassyana (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the second sentence. I think the essence of the first statement is that the authors of the source probably paid more attention to, and did a better job with, passages directly related to the central topic. Thus, the source is less reliable for material that is only peripherally related to the central topic. So this is a statement about the reliability of sources, and belongs in WP:RS.

Certainly there are certain categories of crackpots that make a practice of quoting sources out of context. (Tax protestors immediately come to mind.) But for people who edit in good faith, and understand the distinction between source-based research and wishful thinking, the issue is reliablility, not original research. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for the feedback. Vassyana (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence seems agreeable to everyone, so I have added to the live policy. Vassyana (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This dispute is disputed.

I just had to comment on this. This has to be the most asinine possible thing for the page to get protected over.--Father Goose (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The best thing to do with 'this is disputed' tags is to ignore them and work to resolve the actual dispute. Adding the tag doesn't change the content of the page, and removing it doesn't actually resolve disagreements. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit, I thought the same way as Father Goose when I first encountered this discussion. What changed my opinion (besides the fact all of the parties were making thoughtful contributions) is the chief challenge to any version of this policy, which is that it must be understood by people who have never written a research paper, & thus they have no idea why the rules for writing a Wikipedia article are different. <not entirely joking>I blame the educators: they claim that Wikipedia is full of unreliable information, but somehow overlook the fact it is created by the same people they educate.</not entirely joking> -- llywrch (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First: don't blame the educators. :p And no, its not true that they claim that WP is full of unreliable information. What educators say is "do your homework!," which in the main means "read the damn sources yourself," and secondarily means "do not cite WP or any other encyclopedia." Encyclopedias are indispensable for background information.

Second: if students did not learn do the legwork themselves, how on earth can they be expected to write for the 'pedia? (cf. "it must be understood by people who have never written a research paper")

-- Fullstop (talk)

I think the truly asinine thing is that there is a heated dispute about whether or not the section is truly disputed. I guess people just don't see the irony. This is now the second time the article has been protected over the tag issue. COGDEN 22:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cogden, this whole dispute is a non-issue. No one is saying don't use primary sources. All people are saying is use them with particular care by sticking very closely to what the sources say, because they're easy to misuse. Why would you object to this? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Slim, that's just not true. The PSTS section used to say not to use primary sources. That is what brought the slow simmer over PSTS to a boil. Dhaluza (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff for that Dhaluza? Before this dispute started, the PSTS section stated:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them".

This was the status quo for a very long time. The real dispute has been over further loosening and even removing the limitations on use of Primary sources. Dreadstar † 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is the diff that put "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." in bold, which preceded the first in the chain of recent page protections. And prior to this change, it actually said: "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases)". So the whole line of argument that this has been consistently part longstanding policy is just revisionist history. Dhaluza (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The contents of your diff clearly does not prohibit the use of Primary Sources in Wikipedia articles. It clearly states "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them" (emphasis mine). Saying articles should "rely predominantly on...secondary sources" in no way prohibits the use of Primary Sources. Perhaps clearing up this simple misunderstanding of what the policy states can end this entire dispute. NOR does not, nor has it ever been intended to prohibit the use of primary sources. It just says to use them with caution, and that Wikipedia articles should rely on secondary sources - not must rely only on Secondary sources...that's a total misreading of what the policy has stated all along. Dreadstar † 15:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for being somewhat imprecise. What NOR originally said is that WP is not a primary source, and that has been changed over time to say that articles cannot be based on primary sources, which is a completely different thing. In fact, until 6 months ago, the "long standing" version of this policy specifically said that in some cases articles could be based entirely on primary sources, but this was changed as well. Dhaluza (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's very different from what has been argued here all along, and also different from your statement above, "The PSTS section used to say not to use primary sources." Dreadstar † 21:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Plus, in some cases, primary sources are still entirely banned. Highly-technical primary sources are banned, because nobody without specialized education can verify to them, while, anomalously, highly-technical secondary sources are allowed, even though nobody can understand them other than Ph.Ds, and even though the secondary sources are, themselves, also primary sources. COGDEN 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As I argued several sections ago (in the section about the hypothetical highly technical math article drawn from a primary source), I don't think it's necessary to interpret the policy this way. But, frankly, it's a reasonable approach for a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia ("the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"). If the material is called into question and WP's most highly technical editors can't find a reliable secondary or tertiary source that says the same thing they assert is in the primary source, then don't use the primary source of the highly technical material and remove the material in keeping with the policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying that the present PSTS language does not "need to be" interpreted this way means that you probably agree it can be interpreted this way. Why, then, would you oppose eliminating the ambiguity? Is it because you really want it to be interpreted this way? If so, this seems like a back-door way to insert this interesting editing philosophy upon Wikipedia in violation of WP:POLICY. The important point is that this is not the way things have been in math, science, and philosophy articles since 2001. If you believe things should be done differently, you are free to try to convince editors of that, and if the idea catches on and becomes consensus practice in highly technical articles, it becomes policy, but not until. COGDEN 11:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I also think the protection was over the top. As far as I could see, everyone was keeping to the one-revert-rule, so that is hardly an edit war. By protecting the page, we never see how many people are willing to go on the record for one version or another. And it blocks further work on other issues. Dhaluza (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You should refresh your memory about edit warring. If people want to be on the record, they can make a statement on this talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed this on the talk page, and the editing was in conjunction with talk page discussion. So cutting off this process is hardly conductive to reaching consensus. And how is protection better? If the only "problem" is adding and removing the tag, what is the harm? Since there is no agreement over whether it should be in or out, how does arbitrarily selecting one alternative solve the problem? I would submit that having it on the page part time is less disruptive than locking it in or out. Dhaluza (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It was an edit war, plain and simple; so the protection was right on target and needs to stay in place until this entire dispute is over and done with. I do not believe that Policy pages should contain dispute tags. Dreadstar † 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tags are not pretty, but they are far better than having perpetual protection and a policy article that claims to have widespread consensus, but really doesn't, while a discussion on the talk page rages on for eternity, consensus gradually falling further and further away from the protected language, and there's nothing we can do about it until the original cabal of authors dies. COGDEN 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, right up until the end. Please try to be patient, and civil. Dhaluza (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The primary source section has been in the policy for three years

To people who are arguing that this is a new(ish) section, or that the meaning was recently changed, the stress on secondary sources was added on December 10, 2004 (see lead), [7] and entered the policy in more or less its current form on March 8, 2005, when it said:

"In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary source material used in an article has been published or otherwise made available to people who do not rely on Wikipedia. Moreover, it is essential that any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data come from a secondary source that is available to readers (e.g. in a library or non-Wikipedia web-page). [8]

Three years means that this is very much the consensus version, and it really can't be changed or kept tagged because one or two people don't like it. All policies would be in a constant state of war were that the case.

Cogden, it strikes me that you must have had a particular experience of trying to add primary-source material somewhere, and being prevented by this section, for you to be as keen as this to change it. Can you show us what that issue was, please? It's possible that the policy was simply misused in your case, and that this is all a giant misunderstanding. Wouldn't that be nice? :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that, Reverend Mother. And, in anticipation of COGDEN's reply, let's not forget that when an ad hoc policy change closes a door, somewhere it opens a window. Avb 11:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Actually, I've never had a problem adding primary sources to articles, and I've cited a lot of them. See, for example, featured articles Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. and golden plates. Nobody ever has a problem with this because PSTS as it is currently written does not actually reflect current widespread Wikipedia practice outside the rarified air of us policy wonks. Citation to primary sources has actually solved countless edit wars in various articles caused by the use of conflicting, highly-biased secondary sources that misquote and spin the original material. The solution to that problem is always to cite the primary source, then discuss any notable interpretations of that source. In controversial fields, for reasons mostly of WP:NPOV, you can never rely primarily on secondary sources. You use primary sources, if possible, to say what, why, when, where, and how, and secondary sources to say who's lying and who's version is more accurate. COGDEN 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you never had a problem with WP:NOR because you ignored it, didn't know about it, or your usage either didn't actually violate the policy or you weren't called on it, and now you want to change the policy to reflect your apparent usage and views on the subject. I'd like to see some evidence of these 'countless edit wars' that were resolved by Primary sources that were somehow forbidden by this policy. Primary sources are not forbidden, they are just to be used carefully and judiciously. The problem with primary sources is that they are often misused by editors to add their own spin and create a new analysis or research. Removing the limitations on the use of primary sources will open a Pandora's box of problems. Dreadstar † 01:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say, that just because editors aren't abiding by policy doesn't mean the policy needs to be changed or not enforced when we find violations. Policy should be changed if it's bad policy, or something new and better is written - not because some editors out there aren't following it. There has to be more reasoning behind a change than that. If a whole bunch of editors start walking off a cliff, I'm not going to suggest we write a policy that says others should follow lemming-like off the precipice. Dreadstar † 01:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above, you seem to have a problem with the WP:POLICY article. If you think we should violate WP:POLICY here, you should be arguing that WP:POLICY should be changed. I don't see you making any such arguments. Policy is not the same as policy articles. The articles are not some sort of "code"—they are a description of widespread consensus practices, and they can be wrong. The PSTS section has been wrong for quite some time now, and I follow the actual consensus policy, rather than the way the policy is mis-characterized in PSTS. COGDEN 12:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you have made this "really long time" assertion before, and I have refuted it with the diffs, so here they are again:

This edit from March 8, 2005 introduced the original definition of primary sources as factual sources. In this edit from October 23, 2006 you significantly changed the definition to close sources.

Okay, that's what I'm not seeing. What is the substantive difference between the two versions (i.e. please show me which of the new sentences changed something) and what is a "close source"? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And what is a "factual source"? Look, the definition of primary source hasn't changed, because we're using the definition that scholars use -- we're not making up our own words here. I was one of the editors who worked on the draft back on 2004/2005 with Slrubenstein and others, and I can't see that it has changed substantively over the years. Nor can Slrubenstein, so far as I know. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A factual source is one that makes a basic statement of fact, a close source is one close to the subject. If we are looking at a source rendering an opinion on itself, it would be a secondary source under the old definition, and a primary source under the new one. Frankly, I think the source typing is not helpful in this case. Regardless of whether we classify it as primary or secondary, or whatever, we need to judge if the source is reliable in the context in which it is used (not how it was written). But this is a fundamental change, which is just further evidence there really is no "long-standing policy" on PSTS at all. Dhaluza (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering that this policy has only been in existence for a total of four years, and has only been fully fleshed out into its current state within the last two and a half years, I'd say something that has been included in the policy for over a year is indeed "long-standing". Dreadstar † 00:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think there is any significant disagreement with the quote you cited above. Nobody has made a serious argument for allowing unpublished primary sources, and there has not been any serious argument about excluding editors' analysis or synthesis over those published by RS. So if you are proposing to trim PSTS down to these essential points, I would support that. The only thing I question is the need to use the defined terms primary and secondary sources. Just leave that out and you get this even more succinct and direct version:

"In order to avoid incorporating original research in Wikipedia articles, source material must have been previously published or otherwise made available to people other than on Wikipedia. Moreover, it is essential that any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data come from a source that is available to readers (e.g. in a library or non-Wikipedia web-page)."

-- Dhaluza (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'nice' thing about having the dispute tag visible is it has probably played a part in more people finally coming onto this talk page to try and find the 'what and why' of the dispute. Before the tag was present, the discussion was limited to only around 30 or so editors. Since the tag first appeared, it seems like another 20 or so have joined the discussions. It seems to me that more people that know about a dispute, and the more people who care to participate, the easier it will finally be for one side or the other to truly claim concensus. Just because a large group of people don't know a dispute (or discussion) is going on and therefore don't participate is hardly grounds for claiming concensus. The disputed section was placed into policy when only a small group of around five people were working on this policy. Notice was never made at the VP, so the overwhelming mahority of wikipedia editors were completely unaware of what changes were being done (not even being proposed, but just done). Then, the changes sat quietly unopposed for a period of time (because only a handful knew of them maybe?), and then other claim that they were long-standing policy. (This can clearly be seen by looking at the archives of the talk pages and the dit history). While some may see the dispute tag as harmful to policies, I see it as advertising for more people to actively participate and attempt to make their points heard so this can truly reach a concensus, instead of being kept in a dark closet most people rarely venture into. I'd wager that when most people do venture to this policy page, they take a look at what the policy says, shake their heads trying to figure out what it means, especially with the sidetracked definitions of PSTS, figure it's all just Administrator mumbo-jumbo, and go back to their articles. If they see the tag, some will actually decide to see what it's about, as maybe there's something that may help explain a bit more, and they get an oppurtunity to see what the fuss is about and maybe participate. Unless of course, some would rather keep the discussions away from the masses that make up concensus. wbfergus ^Talk 11:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The bad thing about a dispute tag is that it undermines the policy and sets a precedent for tagging anytime someone disagrees with something in a policy. Since someone is always disagreeing with some aspect of each and every policy we have, we would just have permanent dispute tags on every policy. A dispute tag is not the best way to advertise a Policy dispute, there are plenty of other avenues to draw attention to it. Dreadstar † 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see that a tag on a policy page stating that its contents are in "dispute" could be damaging. So would it be better if there was a tag that was worded in a less argumentative fashion? Something like "There is currently a discussion about some aspects of this section - please see the talk page, and join in if you have an opinion." That would still potentially grab my interest, without apparently shouting out that there were major problems at the core of WP.  —SMALLJIM  00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There was another tag that was used, {{Policycontroversy}}, which was more neutral. We could always use it again instead of {{Disputedtag}}. COGDEN 12:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me, but even my battered old brain can tell that that template is nothing like what I suggested! I'm not familiar with creating templates (yet), as you obviously are - so could I ask if you could create one called "Policy discussion" for me, containing the text I suggested above, please? Then we can see if it is helpful.  —SMALLJIM  20:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as the tags were only on the sections that were under discussion, that might be acceptable. Then they would move around as one issue was settled and another was discussed. The issue at present is that just removing the tag (or adding it) doesn't affect the actual disagreement. I think SlimVirgin is on the right track above - we should find out what each person here is concerned with, which would clarify the discussion. Personally, I am mostly concerned that the wording of this policy stays compatible with actual best practices used in science and math articles. What are other people worried about? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Conforming to science and math article practice is one of my main concerns as well. Also, since I work a lot in highly-controversial history fields, I know from experience that the greater the subject matter's controversy, the greater must be the reliance on primary sources. You don't really understand this until you work on articles in ultra-controversial fields. Another concern of mine is general Wikipedia quality: an article that does not make use of available primary sources is an inferior article. On the other hand, I agree that we don't want people interpreting raw scientific data or maps in controversial or non-obvious ways, but I feel we can advise against this by using concepts other than primariness and secondariness, which would not limit or discourage use of excellent primary sources such as a scientist's interpretation of her own data, or a historical figure's interpretation of a historical situation they were part of. COGDEN 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the statement " I know from experience that the greater the subject matter's controversy, the greater must be the reliance on primary sources." : In other words, you're doing, or wanting to do, original research in Wikipedia articles. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by that? Are you saying that citing peer-reviewed journal articles is prima facie evidence of violating WP:NOR? Sorry to be blunt, but that's ridiculous. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying, also bluntly, maybe not bluntly enough, that this statement taken together with Cogden's other statements amounts to an advocacy of primary-source based research in Wikipedia articles. When Wikipedia editors can't find secondary or tertiary sources to back up the assertions found in primary sources, the statements in the articles should be limited to the scope permitted under the present expression of WP:PSTS. If the insights or information in those primary sources you're referring to are useful, the secondary sources will be published quickly enough. If they're not that useful, the information asserted in such a primary source tends to die in its tracks. Take, for instance, Jacques Benveniste's article in the journal Nature as a famous example. The secondary sources were all over ithe place within months and the information Benveniste provided about water memory was ultimately put into its proper perspective by the secondary sources w.r.t. about that particular set of assertions whose primary source was the peer-reviewed Benveniste article. In other cases the secondary sources will bear the primary source out in due course. It's not our job in Wikipedia to be drawing the information presented to readers from the primary sources, except within the limits of WP:PSTS. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord, you were serious... How do you reconcile this with the advice in WP:V that includes peer-reviewed journals as being among the "most reliable sources"? And how do you reconcile it with the utterly abysmal state of science journalism -- the fount of those wonderful "secondary sources" -- in the U.S. and some other countries? Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying use them in any given article as often as the local consensus sees fit, but use in keeping with the policy, keeping the information closely consistent with that primary source in such a way that any reasonably educated person can recognize its consistency by looking at that primary source and comparing it to what's written in the wikipedia page that cites to that primary source. Where an interpretation is involved, one or more secondary sources must be involved in the interpretation. Otherwise it's original research. The policy is quite clear on this, repeating the concept on the policy page in several different ways. Maybe someone should give an example of an article where this actually is a problem before calling it a problem. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm thoroughly confused. Before, you made a sweeping assertion that using journal articles (i.e., primary sources) constituted OR, but now you're saying that it's OK as long as any "reasonably educated person" (try getting any two Wikipedians to agree on what that means!) can see that the article is in agreement with the source. I think I'll go back to doing what most people here do, which is to ignore the endless byzantine policy discussions and go about writing and improving articles... Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if it seemed that way. I drew this conclusion based upon the sum total of Cogden's comments in the context of his spearheading a several-months-long effort to remove WP:PSTS from the policy. And I'm not the only one who has interpreted the sum of Cogden's arguments w.r.t. PSTS in this basic fashion. Unfortunately I don't have time to organize a list of Cogden's relevant comments that IMO quite reasonably lead to such a conclusion. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC) ... And perhaps needless to say, I'm angry at him right now -- IMO, much of this debate has been an unfortunate drain of time and energy in defense of what I and many others consider to be a very reasonable policy that was originally set into motion by J.Wales several years ago. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So it was in the context of a particular editor's actions. Thanks for pointing that out. I can get a little paranoid about the anti-science POV that is common in Wikipedia, as I tend to edit in some rough neighborhoods. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely familiar with some of the work you've done, and appreciate and respect it highly. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you are angry, Kenosis, you've moved past denial, and once you get over your anger, bargaining is the next stage of grief, and maybe we'll reach an agreement. I'm just kidding. Lighten up! Arguments like these, and the difficulties at arriving at consensus are what Wikipedia is about. COGDEN 12:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No big problem; I think it's already at "acceptance". ;-) But TBH, the argumentation became unproductive awhile ago, IMO. The arguments against PSTS have been all over the map, so to speak, shotgun style, and IMO are not representative of any significant problems with the policy. The disagreements about how to implement it, among editors of individual articles, are no more prevalent than arguments over NPOV or V.

Kenosis, are you saying that editors cannot use their own experience to determine what is actual current Wikipedia practice and consensus? How else to we determine whether policy articles reflect current practice as per WP:POLICY? COGDEN 12:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To the first question: The answer is that the question is irrelevant-- where editors use their own experience to determine what is current practice and consensus, whether across the entire wiki or in a given area or category within the wiki, it is of necessity a community assessment, not an individual one. Dreadstar and others have already made the point that silence or lack of constant participation by everyone on the talk page w.r.t. a longstanding policy does not demonstrate widespread disagreement with the policy. And, vocal opposition by a relatively small group of editors does not demonstrate community rejection of a longstanding policy. This current policy, despite what was IMO some reasonable quibbling about the precise language, is longstanding in comparison to the age of Wikipedia itself, and is fundamentally a stable, widely accepted policy. To the second question: This question too is irrelevant-- editorial policy is not solely determined by a set of arguments over current practice but also reflects editorial ideals and goals. This policy was set into motion by WP's founder, and its objectives are reflected in numerous articles across the wiki in which it has been applied successfully to mitigate and/or resolve problems relating to the validity of the articles' content. Most of the objections to the policy, on the other hand, have been hypothetical, and where actual examples have been alleged to be a problem, we have given ways that the article editors can use to solve the problems they may have in conceptualizing the policy w.r.t. their particular article or category of article.. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis seems to read the policy differently than I do. To take the Beneveniste case, there may not have been any primary source involved. Some people regard all peer-reviewed articles as secondary sources, because the reviewers evaluate the author's claims. In any case, any information that appeared in the Nature article could be included in Wikipedia, even if the information in Nature made "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims", provided it was the author of the Nature article that made the claims, and it wasn't a case of the Wikipedia editor inferring the claims from the Nature article. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course the evaluative claims made by Benveniste were part of that primary source and are fair game to use within the limits prescribed by WP:PSTS. They're fair game as long as any reasonably educated person can look at the text of the wikipedia article and then look at the page cited to in the source and conclude that it has been reported accurately. To give an example of why this is a reasonable policy mandate, take for instance the article on homeopathy, where numerous primary sources involve experiments with differing experimental results. Firstly, just the fact that they're published in "peer reviewed journals" doesn't make them all equally reliable. This necessitated that Wikipedia editors find reliable secondary summaries so as to avoid sifting through the numerous primary sources of experimental reporting on the matters at issue there. Similarly it was with intelligent design, where the primary sources on the various permutations of intelligent design needed to be quoted or otherwise represented in a way that any reasonably educated person could verify the accuracy of the Wikipedia reporting by looking at the Wikipedia text and comparing it to the primary source without being a molecular biologist or another type of specialist. The evaluative portions in that article were all drawn from reliable secondary sources including material published by the NAS and many other scientific organizations. Same with global warming, where there is not one primary source that makes any kind of broad evaluative claim that wasn't backed up by one or more reliable secondary sources, and in the instances where primary sources such as a particular study are used, the article sticks to the facts. That article, in my estimation of it, is an excellent example of one that is in compliance with both the letter and the spirit of WP:PSTS. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Arguments have a context. The context of everything in this page is No Original Research. When someone writes about problems with primary sources published in reliable publications, and how secondary sources eventually evaluated the primary sources as wrong, the natural inclination is to think this has something to do with No Original Research, since the argument is occuring on this page. In fact, the process of deciding that a source that meets the criteria in WP:RS is wrong, and in fact is so wrong that it isn't even worth mentioning as a minority view, is really just a matter of good source-based research, and has nothing to do NOR. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that editorial supervision, such as peer review, converts a primary source to a secondary one--that is a reliability issue only. But I do agree that OR is about what the source is. If it's the editor, it's OR; if it's a published author, it's not. The rest of the primary source baggage is just unnecessary obfuscation of what should be a simple principle and policy. Dhaluza (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The article was just unprotected. Let's try to keep it that way; it's somewhat embarrassing that editors on either side continue to revert the disputed template, not to mention WP:LAME. I'm glad to see the productive discussion just above, which I hope will clarify the nature of the disagreement. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Need Clarification

Are blogs by political candidates acceptable for their bio?. For example, if candidate A claims that they are the best candidate to elect, can we accept that as a primary source and write the sentence, 'Candidate A is the best candidate to elect' in their biography?. TwakTwik (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would be fine except that it would violate NPOV - you'd have to phrase it as "Candidate A says that they are the best candidate to elect." But that's not really a NOR question as such. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thats exactly the edit I requested on Gary Weiss when admins referred me to this page and said I am wasting time. Go figure!! TwakTwik (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, blogs are not normally considered reliable sources at all... but in this case, I suppose it could be considered a "self-published" source (see WP:V and WP:RS). It certainly would be against several Wikipedia policies and guidelines to say "Candidate A is the best candidate "... such a statement should indeed be attributed ("Candidate A states that he is the best candidate "). I'm not sure if this is a NOR issue. Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

An addendum... I took a look at the situation at the Gary Weiss article... your example is not quite apt for the debates that are raging at that article. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In that article, a Gary Weiss's blog itself was cited as source for the claim that he was threatened. That article has over 40-50% all references from Gary Weiss himself. Its indeed like saying 'Candidate A is the best candidate'. TwakTwik (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

Regarding the change of WP:PSTS back to a newly proposed form of WP:PSS here, for example, I do not see significant expression of consensus for this kind of change. Firstly, it goes back to over a year ago when the mention of tertiary sources gave a perspective on encyclopedic sources in the context originally set into motion by Jimmy Wales three years ago. This change was a very significant one that eliminated the examples of primary sources suggested by many participants in various areas of the wiki. It also placed secondary sources prior to primary sources in a way that appears likely to be even more confusing to readers that have not been directly involved in this discussion or who may not have closely analyzed the concept before. So I reverted here, leaving intact some other changes Vassyana made to the section on "Using sources".

I noted two proposed sentences at the beginning of the section ("Appropriate sourcing is a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding which sources are most appropriate for an article is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on individual article talk pages."). I do think there's meaningful information in these sentences, but I don't believe it's adequate to stand by itself as a complete replacement for the current introduction to the section on PSTS. The proposed change really was a major one. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to substantively explain your objections in the draft discussion. Please explain why the conflation of secondary and tertiary sources is a problematic move. The only objection voiced about that was that some tertiary sources are good summaries, and the replacement includes such language. Secondary sources were moved first, because there was objection that the primary source section mentions them before the definition of secondary sources. How does it going first confuse the issue at all? Could you explain your objection about the introduction further? The extant introduction doesn't say anything of substance except to say there are three categories and that they're defined by the section. The revision is surely a significant one, but this is merely a further revision of the last proposed draft, accommodating the substantiated and reasonable objections raised. It has been repeatedly exposed to the broader community through RfCs and postings on the policy village pump. It has generated a broader agreement than anything else that's come on the table, including the preexisting version. Between the fact it was broadly advertised, that it's generated more support than other alternatives and that substantive objections have been addressed, it is your burden to provide well-explained objections. Vassyana (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I now see the discussion farther up on this page. Offhand, it seems like the two proposed sentences I mentioned just above have the potential to clarify a lot to those users who feel like they might be forced to make precise distinctions w.r.t. every single source, which AFAIK is not the intent of either PSS or PSTS. I do know that the addition of tertiary sources, a standard term in libraries, helped clarify questions like "what is Wikipedia?" and what are other encyclopedias and compilations of numerous sources, that are conceptually a step removed from secondary sources. The main usefulness of the two proposed sentences is, IMO, in clarifying that the distinctions are not hard-and-fast and that shared editorial judgment is a key component in allocating sources, especially in articles where different sources disagree with one another on particular issues. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Those sentences are nothing more than a mild variation of the text added by SlimVirgin to the end of the extant section. While the philosophical questions such as "What is Wikipedia?" are fascinating, I fail to see the need to address them in the NOR policy. Again, why is the conflation of secondary and tertiary sources problematic? Also, could you please answer the other questions? Vassyana (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look through the history of the project page, you'll see that people inserted such things as "Wikipedia is an X type of source". Fact is, there's editorial value-added in properly conceptualizing the "lay of the land" as far as sources, in terms of NOR and in terms of just-plain-editing-in-general. Indeed, this is why PSTS is a convenient and useful schema for libraries in conceptualizing the content that sits under their roof. As far as editing practice in wikipedia-- well, hey, if the consensus becomes that the "tertiary" perspective is counterproductive, I surely will not stand in the way of its removal. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Due to the long ranging discussions, I've looked through the history many times. I doubled checked to be sure, but as far as I can tell "Wikipedia is X kind of source" came up is tertiary sources were added to the policy. The mention of Wikipedia as a type of source arose with the introduction of tertiary sources, not the other way around. Could you please answer my other questions? Vassyana (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I also thought it worth mentioning that the standing version of policy does not source-type Wikipedia. Interestingly, you were the one who removed the mention of it from the policy.[9] Vassyana (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct that I removed it. By far the most important issue was that WP is never a primary source. If it weren't for all the wrangling, I'd surely have inserted, or re-inserted, the sentence backing up both WP:V and WP:NOR that "Wikipedia is never to be a primary source of information". As to the prior insertions by one or more other editors that, e.g., "Wikipedia is an X type of source", if you look thoroughly enough, you'll find them. I'm not going to go looking back through it again for this purpose. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'm a complete loss as to why you are objecting. Could you please answer my questions and elaborate? Vassyana (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I also couldn't see the benefit of the changes, and it introduced some problematic issues such as "raw facts." What is a "raw fact" as opposed to a normal one? Also, it doesn't hurt to keep the tertiary distinction. It's not often used meaningfully on WP, but it's a distinction that's regularly mentioned, so we may as well explain it to people. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be possible to edit the changes to address concerns about tertiary sources without reverting. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Slim, is this the change you're discussing in this section? If not, let's discuss so an edit war doesn't break out and we have to protect the article again. Dreadstar † 18:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that change. [10] The version Phil reverted to has no consensus that I can see, and it introduces problematic terms. Can someone tell me what a raw fact is, as opposed to a fact? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Does this section relate to WT:NOR#Revisiting a proposal?? If so, can you make that clear Slim? Jsut to be sure we'll all on the same page..or same section of the page..or whatever... Thanks, Wbfergus for pointing that out. Dreadstar † 18:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Slim, the benefit is that the replacement is a compromise reflecting months of discussion, including multiple policy RfCs and solicitations on the village pump. Regardless of whether or not it is better, is it worse the than standing section? If not, then why oppose the change? If so, then how? Is "raw facts" really that confusing to you? "Raw" is used in the conventional sense, as in "minimally processed". Things like laboratory data and census reports are compilations of "raw facts". Do you have a better way to express the idea? Why is the absence of tertiary sources a problem? You admit it's not really used meaningful in the wiki. I also don't really think it's "regularly mentioned" (or at least, I've never seen any indication of such) outside the context of this policy (or referring to it). Vassyana (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I'm definitely in favor of adding to the statement that parts of an article drawing on primary sources should "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims unless explicitly attributed in the Wikipedia article's text to that source", which Vassyana tried to do something like that here. To me, that adds a lot more clarity. Also, IMO the proposed paragraph for secondary sources is an improvement, and I'd support replacing the brief current paragraph on secondary sources with that proposed paragraph. That secondary source paragraph can be found at User:Vassyana/NOR_002. I definitely am not in favor of removing tertiary sources nor in favor of reordering primary and secondary sources and rewriting the whole PSTS section, and think this creates more problems than it solves. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate if you would explain your opposition, including your opposition to conflating secondary and tertiary sources (which you have not adequately explained). Unless you explain your concerns, they cannot be considered and addressed. Vassyana (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I said before, I don't see any the proposed changes as being any improvement at all over the longstanding version because proposals simply the supposed points of confusion with new sources of confusion, but more of them than before. Once more, the problem is not with the policy but editors not reading and understanding it. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Last time you expressed your opinion without explanation. Could you perhaps be more explicit in explaining what you find to be problematic with the draft? What adds confusion in the proposed replacement? If large swaths of (obviously intelligent and wiki-experienced) editors read the policy and don't understand it, then obviously there's a problem with the wording of the policy. To suggest otherwise is more than a bit ridiculous. Vassyana (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone else deal with it

I'm done. I don't have the time or interest to play games with children or to deal with people where getting substantive responses is like pulling teeth. If someone else wants to handle making changes to the draft page in my userspace, they're welcome to do so. I will not be participating on this page for the time being. It's repulsive and sickening that editors who damn well know better seem to think that reversions are a replacement for discussion and that they have veto power over edits. Two of those people have declined to take part in discussing the drafts, which is all the more revolting. When basic wiki process (discussion/formation of consensus) is meaningless, there's no point in wasting my time on this joke. Vassyana (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: I removed a {{fact}} tag by SeizureDog on the phrase "damn well know better" above. I encourage all editors to make their own comments rather than placing tags in other editors' comments. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As always, editors should remember that changes should not be reverted when they can be improved towards compromise. It would only be polite to leave explanatory comments on the talk page when undoing edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that small group of stubborn, pig-headed Administrators can eventually force someone as eloquent and hard-working and dedicated towards the improvement of Wikipedia as a whole, such as yourself to give up. A quick look through the edit history and the past discussions clearly shows that that group is in the minority, yet they freely abuse their Administrator 'powers' to block consensus. Even a quick and cursory (let alone a detailed) review of these discussions show that they are clearly in the minority and do not have consensus to keep things set in stone. wbfergus ^Talk 18:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I am also shocked by people reverting this when they ignored the discussion about it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this section a part of that discussion? It looks like it's discussing the same wording that was just added and reverted, such as "raw facts", so I think this needs to be clarified before saying it hasn't been discussed by those reverting. Dreadstar † 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My objection is that discussion sections sat around for days with no input, then people began reverting once the discussions had gotten anywhere. That's an irritating waste of everybody's time. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The reverts of the last few days are not just shocking and shameful. Even iff it were down to petty crap like the use of "raw," tossing hard work of months only because the word "raw" doesn't appear in the very first sentence is just plain fanaticism. That the reverters didn't care to participate in the discussion to begin with is bad enough. But reverting and not participating even after having been pointed to it, is downright despicable. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use terms like "downright despicable"; they aren't going to help the conversation at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This might be a good point where we take this to the Arbcom. I think we have some actionable behavior, including clear violations now of WP:OWN, WP:POLICY, WP:CONS. I'm generally on the opposite side of Vassyana in these discussions, but I very much respect Vassyana's commendable efforts in working toward consensus, and it is a shame that pro-PSTS editors here are eating their own kind. COGDEN 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom? The policy page has been suffering from chronic revertitis for quite some time--should we form a list of each editor who has reverted the policy page in the past however many weeks now? One reason for the revertitis is that there is never any consensus reached that actual consensus has been reached. We can't even agree that there has ever been consensus on the clause, ever. Some even claim instead that their own view on the issue counts most of all because it's supposedly aligned with the consensus view of wikipedia as a whole, as if they're gifted with special insights into the unknowable which the unfortunates on the other side just don't have. It should be an interesting lineup for any arbcom. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec, is followup to Cogden. Apologies if this distracts from Philip's question)

Right. Not being able to see eye-to-eye is one thing. But reverting, itself disrespectful, and simultaneously ignoring the modalities of discussion in progress are anti-social, if not actually contemptuous (as Vassyana justifiably saw it as "repulsive and sickening").

This, coming from experienced editors, and only just after the page was unprotected, is really inexcusable.

So, yes Cogden, this may be the right point to take it to mediation/arbitration. As far as the page is concerned, the only other option is a self-imposed 0RR, and even this I don't see happening as long as some people think the circus is their circus. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the section recently and to complaints that "I have to say, I am also shocked by people reverting this when they ignored the discussion about it." I would like to point out that this particular topic has been discussed in detail for several months and I have already explained how I interpret the current text and been involved in some subtle changes where the meaning has not been clear. If a person had read what I have written on the talk page over the last month or so, then my comment in the edit history should be clear enough. Is it really necessary for me to repeat my concerns every time I reverse a change, or should I be able to assume that the person making the change will have read the recent talk page and talk page archives? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just reviewed a lot of your comments here (going back more than a month), and I have no idea exactly why you would feel the replacement is an unacceptable compromise. Regardless, the burden is not on other editors to extrapolate and assume your positions. The burden is on you to participate in discussions and clearly express your opinions. If you cannot be bothered to do so, we need not be bothered to consider what you might think. Vassyana (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

While I applaud your attempt to work out a compromise proposal among those who've participated directly in this talk page lately, I think it underestimates the breadth of unspoken support for the basic PSTS approach. I'm willing to be shown to be wrong about that, of course. But not everybody who supports it wants to participate endlessly defending a policy that's been in place for some time now. What I'm unsure of is how much hidden disagreement there is among people who haven't participated. Offhand I'd speculate that silence generally would be more-or-less equivalent to support or at least general acceptance. And if there were widespread disagreement, people would have read SlimVirgin the proverbial riot act as soon as she added the tertiary-source part over a year ago. That said, why not try adding the material in the one paragraph on secondary sources in Vassyana's proposal? and see where it goes. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean these diffs? Looking at the Talk page for this period, only 8 people were participating on the talk page. One user mentioned the rash of edits and asked for others to review and comment, and only one person replied (who happens to be one of the 'reverters'). Looking at the edit history for that period, only 8 people were participating in the edits (before and after), a couple of them IP's and most edits by others were reverts. These were major changes to policy without any discussion or announcements anywhere on Wikipedia (if there were, I can't find them in any history/archive pages). In short, these were made by a very small group of 'editors', against current (then and now) Wikipedia policy, where it explicitly states "Editors should not make significant changes to policy without seeking consensus first." Or I suppose 8 people alone (total) can form consensus if the discussions (if any) are performed in a 'closet' where nobody knows about them until after the fact, when it can then be claimed to be 'long-standing' policy? One person tried to bring the issue up, a couple others tried to modify the changes somehow (I haven't looked at how) but were reverted, so at least a couple people tried to address the issue then. It seems very difficult to me to be able to claim 'consensus' when there was what appears to be a very large vacuum (intentional or not). wbfergus ^Talk 14:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I will point out that provided adequate exposure to the community that silence implies consent. Those previous changes were not widely advertised before implementation. However, both the overall discussion of revising the section and the proposed draft were advertised many times on the village pump and through policy RfCs. Given the broad exposure of the discussions and drafts, one at least can infer that the community exposure met the higher standard required of policy and that any notable silence is reflective of non-opposition. Vassyana (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

and possibly wording things more flexibly, to indicate that it depends a good deal on the type of article? It will make this less likelyt to be used one way or another in an inappropriately rigid fashion--considering there is a least a little question of where the consensus now stands.DGG (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any the proposed changes as being any improvement at all over the longstanding version, so I for one oppose the proposed changes. Again. This is a dead horse, the proposals simply the supposed points of confusion with new sources of confusion, but more of them than before. The problem is not with the policy but editors not reading and understanding it. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Felonious... I don't think you can say that those wishing to clarify the PSTS section have not read the policy. The year long debate over the minutia of the wording clearly shows that they have. You might have a point in stating that they don't understand the policy... but, if that is so, have you considered that the reason why so many editors don't understand the policy is that it is poorly written and confusing? That the "longstanding" language of this policy needs revision and clarification? Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just in this section, I see the above comments as 7 for Vassyana's changes, 4 against. So, I guess this brings up the question, what is consensus? 51%, 60%, 75%, 90%, unanimous approval? wbfergus ^Talk 14:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a question I've been asking myself in the last few days, although I know it's not a matter of percentages. I've also been wondering how such a small number of self-selected people can determine what a policy says. And why is Wikipedia's consensus system such a pale shadow of real-world Consensus decision-making systems. That page is linked to in the first line of WP:CONS, by the way, and it made for very interesting reading. I think we should have at least a couple of facilitators appointed for any major issue such as this. Though having written that, I have to admit that I still can't tell whether the long-running discussions about PSTS here actually do constitute a major issue, or are just tinkering around the edges. Can someone help shed light on any of this?  —SMALLJIM  16:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what we have to look at is a consensus of interested parties. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors certainly have no interest in this policy, and will continue to primary sources with impunity, in violation of PSTS, and not worry about whether or not lay people can verify highly technical references. What we need to establish is (1) that PSTS has a ("higher standard of") consensus among interested commentators on the talk page, and (2) that PSTS reflects actual Wikipedia practice. Clearly, at least #1 is not established. I think that #2 is pretty clearly untrue, as well. COGDEN 21:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

FM, you do not get to just say no and claim it is a dead horse. Votes don't count towards consensus. Feel free to elaborate your position and respond to my questions in the previous section. Vassyana (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR has more reasons to now to be the guiding policy

In light of the recent revert history over the past week or so (see above), there is now much more impetus for all users to just adopt a 'screw it' attitude about policies and just edit as they wish. A clear minority of people who happen to have Admin 'powers' are blocking a clear consensus towards improvement of a convoluted and confusing policy, mainly consfusing by defining terms in a policy from one discipline that have different meanings in other disciplines. Defining such terms as a policy are wrong. That they aren't a clear definition that addresses all uses, or makes no attempt to clarify that these are only from one disciplines perspective and even still modified to be Wikipedia-unique terms is even more egregious. When the actions of a few dictate the resultant course of so many others, it's simply time to IGNORE ALL RULES, especially since it is a policy. wbfergus ^Talk 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunate but true - the inability to make sensible edits to policy is very damaging, and the sorry state it has left our content policies in is only the most obvious flaw of it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules" is already in motion. The latest case of it being the abysmal disregard of WP:REVERT for WP:POINTy reasons. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

What is the difference between a raw fact and a fact? I'm asking because "raw" is a term I keep seeing being used on this page, but I've no idea what's meant by it, and now it's in the policy. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not just "raw facts". Primary sources are original sources or sources very close to the origin of a topic or issue under discussion in an article (which could IMO be explained a bit better than it currently is in the PSTS section). In general, Aristotle's works are primary sources w.r.t. Aristotle's original concepts. A work of fiction is a primary source w.r.t. discussion of that work of fiction. The publications of leading intelligent design proponents are primary sources w.r.t. intelligent design, except where they are reinterpreting concepts in molecular biology or cosmology that originated elsewhere. Etc., etc, more or less in keeping with the currently provided set of examples of things that in general are primary sources. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"raw fact" may be:

• a differentiation of empirical observations from rationalized ones:
  "The sky is blue because the atmosphere scatters light of shorter wavelengths more than light of longer wavelengths" is a rationale for the "raw fact" that the sky is blue.
• a symptom of the human propensity to differentiate things even when such differentiation is irrelevant (cf information bias and distinction bias).
  In this, it seems necessary to distinguish "raw facts" from "facts" for the same reasons that it seems necessary to distinguish "primary sources" from "sources."
• a secret weapon to distract less astute editors, giving them the opportunity to hold forth on other irrelevancies.

In all cases, the focus on the distinction between "fact" and "raw fact" is called "anchoring."

-- Fullstop (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Slim, I've previously responded to this question and posed questions for you.[11] Vassyana (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What about documentaries

Examples of primary sources include ... videos, and television programs. What about documentaries? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. I think it was intended to be an example of artistic works, but obviously it's worded in an overly broad fashion. There are plenty of video and television productions that would be secondary sources. Vassyana (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How can we fix the wording to exclude those things which would usually be considered secondary sources like documentaries investigative journalism etc? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be redacting the list to a short one with fundamental examples. As a fix for this particular issue, just remove the list of examples for "artistic and fictional works". I believe that most editors can identify works of art and fiction without an extensive list of examples. If they need some examples for guidance in that regard, the footnote clearly lists better examples of artistic works. I would also recommend removing "published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research" as that includes most peer-reviewed scientific literature and a broad swath of academic and mass market science books, which I think most people agree are more like secondary sources under our policy. Vassyana (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The nature (e.g. book, documentary, poem, news program) of a source is actually irrelevant to whether it is a 'primary' or 'secondary' source. All that matters is the relationship between the source and the topic of discussion. Can a documentary be a primary source? Sure... Bowling for Columbine is obviously a primary source for the article about itself. Just as the Encyclopedia Brittanica is a primary source in that article and even the Encyclopedia article. --CBD 13:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

While the primary/secondary nature of a work can change with context, this is a fairly limited set of circumstances. Additionally, the nature of a work is a large part of both the academic and operative Wikipedia definitions of primary and secondary sources. Sure, in relation to itself such works are primary sources, but outside of that limited context they are clearly secondary sources. Vassyana (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As with written documents, I think there are some documentaries that qualify as primary sources and other documentaries that qualify as secondary sources. It depends on the individual documentary Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, essentially you seem to be arguing that 'encyclopedias are more often cited as secondary (or 'tertiary') sources than as primary sources' and 'novels are more often cited as primary sources than as secondary'... of course that is obviously true, but it has more to do with what those sources are 'reliable' for. A novel wherein the characters discuss the toxic effects of Amanita mushrooms could be cited as a secondary source for information on that topic... but novels are not generally considered reliable sources for scientific information. Anything can be either a 'primary' or 'secondary' source, but the kind of information a source is considered reliable for varies considerably by 'type'. However, that is the purview of the reliable sources policy and really has nothing to do with 'original research' or 'primary/secondary' sources. --CBD 17:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A question of consensus

I have, sadly, seen this debate played out in just about all our policy and guideline pages. A group of editors express the need to change something in a Policy... They claim a local consensus (ie consensus among themselves) as to language. Another group resists that change. They claim a local consensus for keeping the "long standing" version. Each group claims that the other group has not demonstrated "Community Consensus" (ie beyond the local consensus) for their view. It come down to this... When such debates arise, do we need to demonstrate a larger community consensus to change, or do we need to demonstrate a larger community consensus to maintain? And, in each case, how do we determine whether that larger community consensus has been achieved or not?

As I see it, the underlying problem is that the "larger community" does not really worry about what the policies and guidelines say until they get into a dispute and need to resolve it. Thus, there is very little input from that larger community when a dispute comes up. We can post a notice of the dispute at the Village Pump and various e-mail lists... but usually such postings do not generate a lot of comment one way or the other. The larger community remains silent on the issue. The question then becomes, how to we interpret that silence? Is the fact that the larger community has not bothered to express an opinion on a proposed change a tacit approval for the change... or a tacit approval for the "long standing version"? How do we judge "community consensus" when the "community" does not give an opinion? Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Well put. A question: can admins as a group be considered representative of everyone else? If so, maybe admins could be encouraged to consider important issues when they arise. I was going to say "coerced to give their opinion on...", but I'm not quite sure if that would be viable :)  —SMALLJIM  16:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, along these lines, I've asked all of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee questions similar to this. But, what is concensus? Consensus of those actively participating in the discussion constructively? Consensus of the Admins invloved in the discussion? Consensus of those who wrote it? And what percentage shows if or when concensus is reached? Lately (the last few months), it seems that consensus must mean unanimous approval of at least Admins, if not solely the original writers. Previous changes that had a higher percentage of those actively participating were reverted with the (dubious) claim of no consensus, so it really shows there must be differing viewpoints about not only how much makes a consensus, but who those are that get allowed to be counted in the consensus. wbfergus ^Talk 17:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is a state achieved not through active approval of something, but through lack of active opposition against something.

-- Fullstop (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Judging something by the lack of comments seems wrong to me... how do we judge something that isn't said? The lack of comment can be understood two ways... Take our current debate... Vassyana proposed a revised PSTS section. Notice of that revision was posted at the Village Pump and at several other prominent locations. Those notices did not result in a flood of editors dropping in to express their opinions. The larger community remained silent. Now, how are we to judge that silence? Does it indicate approval of Vassyana's proposal?... or does it indicate approval for the "long standing" status quo? Both arguments can be sustained if we base consensus on a lack of active opposition. Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally, silence implies consent provided adequate exposure to the community. Policy requires a higher standard, but the discussion over revision of PSTS has been been on-going and both the drafts, overall discussion and various individual points have been widely advertised on the village pump and via policy RfCs. Considering the on-going nature of the discussion and the many notices to the community, I'd believe that the higher standard required of policy changes has been met. Vassyana (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So to use our current debate as the example, you feel that the silence of the larger community indicates a consensus in favor of the change? Blueboar (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I do. I also believe that unjustified opinions do not "count" towards consensus, because people don't get to vote for or against consensus. Vassyana (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) If silence implies consent, I would interpret the general silence of most people oncerning this polcy to mean that the vast majority of the community think it (meaning, the version that existed, more or less, back in July) was good enough and not in need of fundamental reform. I think some people here are motivated by a desire to have perfect policies. But no policy can or ever will be perfect. Alas, if you are looking for a perfect policy, you can take a very good policy and start picking and scratching at it until nothing is left of it. I have never opposed attempts to improve the wording of this policy; indeed, I have made my own suggestions. But there was a fairly stable version for a pretty long time - in Wikipedia, six months is a long time, one year is an eon, and two years is an eternity (map it against the growth in contributors or articles and you will have a proper scale for measuring time at Wikipedia). People who reject PST because it is not perfect are i think making a major mistake but I respect their intentions. There are other people who reject PST because they fundamentally reject the idea of NOR; they want to put their own OR into the encyclopedia - they want to use Wikipedia to correct published works they believe to be wrong. These people will always be opposed to NOR, will always stir up controversy ... but they are not worth arguing with. In such situations, silence definitely does not mean consent. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I do somewhat agree (see some of my above comments though). However, the change on the table is a revision of PSTS supported by people on both sides of the PSTS issue and it has been broadly advertised in the community. What do you think of the silence in that context? Vassyana (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think most people coming here will find just today's discussion so complex and daunting that they will give up and go away (in silence) before they have even figured out what the issue "on the table" is. (for what it is worth, I wrote a long paragraph expressing my own view of the issue on the table and Wikipedia timed out on me and it wasn't saved and I lost it and I am too tired and busy to rewrite it now. Trust me: it is nothing I haven't written many times back in August or September when we were discussing the same issues; in brief, I think Feloious Monk speaks for me). Slrubenstein | Talk 19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you are selling yourself short. Where you have been eloquent and open to discussion, and have even participated in some recent changes for the improvement of the policy in the last few months (4-6 months) through consenual editing, FeloniousMonk has been quite the opposite. I have taken your absence the last month or so to mean that you feel it would be prudent to distance yourself from most of the regular and mundane talk as one of the original drafters of the policy. You have not been party to the edit wars, whether you agreed with any changes or not, so you are not 'tainted' as it were by any overt acts of revertitis without discussion. wbfergus ^Talk 23:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the reverts are pointless, and I wish myself that editors would leave the policy mainspace alone until there's well vetted copy ready and a solid consensus for any changes to it. And I know nerves are frayed and Vassyana, you especially have gone above and beyond working hard to see this dispute resolved. But how can there be any resolution? This is a picture of a monthish-worth of edits on the mainspace: edited over 200 times, just under half of them reverts or undos, and about half of all edits were at the hands of the same 4 editors. And this is a picture of the talk page during the same time period: 1500 comments left by about 80 editors, though again-just 4 editors dominating it, doing just a little less talking than all the other 75ish put together. The arguments are disjointed, confusing, voluminous, circuitous, and numbingly repetitious. A few days of "no response" is not evidence of consent-bleary-eyed weariness maybe, but not consent. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

@Blueboar:

>>Judging something by the lack of comments seems wrong to me

Read what I wrote very carefully. Perhaps read your own initial question first before you do.

If you don't like the word "lack," then read it as: "Consensus is a state that is achieved when there is no active dissent."

Note well: "no dissent" does not necessarily mean "only consent."

>>Now, how are we to judge that silence? Does it indicate approval of

Note the word "active" in what I wrote. Silence is not active. It does not indicate anything.

Consensus is a state achieved when there is a lack of active opposition. Silence equals lack of active opposition.

Using a potpourri of your own words: "we determine whether (that larger community) consensus has been achieved or not" when (and as long as) there are no objections (==there is only silence).

-- Fullstop (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense silliness. The endurance of a handful of editors does not represent consensus. The dispute here has been more a long running marathon than a gauge of community consensus. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You write "what nonsense" but I believe you really mean "what silliness." I propose to revise what you wrote. We need some discussion on this. Or should we take a poll? After that, I have some comments about the use of your word "handful" which I think others will want to comment on! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to know when consensus has been achieved, but it is easy to know when consensus has not been achieved. When any significant group of editors consistently opposes part of a policy article, and continue to present reasonable arguments and discussion, there is no consensus.

And the answer to the above question by Blueboar about whether you need consensus to change the policy or consensus period, the answer is clearly the latter. WP:POLICY states, and has stated for a very long time, that policy and guideline pages reflect current consensus and practice, not consensus from some past era. Second, WP:CONS states that "A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision." There is no inertia for language in policy articles based solely on some previous group having made a decision. When a section of a policy article is subjected to more widespread participation, the language has to be re-justified as a consensus within the wider community. See, e.g., what happened with WP:ATT. COGDEN 20:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You're totally wrong, Cogden. There has been long-standing consenus for the PSTS section, a handful of editors are challenging that section, but do not have the consensus needed to make changes or remove PSTS from WP:NOR. New consensus for changes is necessary, as has been argued over and over here. And I should point out that your changes to WP:POLICY in that vein are being challenged right now. See below. Dreadstar † 20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"You're totally wrong"!? Do you seriously think the 4+ MB of talk (in the last six months alone!) is an indication of "consensus"? Or is this use of "consensus" a speshull one that we need to be aware of?

Even if it were only a "handful of editors" that you suppose, that is already 4 more than it takes to negate a "consensus." It doesn't take unanimity for change, thats not the wiki way, otherwise with 55-15 you wouldn't be an admin, and with 6-<any number> you could just as easily be absolved of it.

-- Fullstop (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I note that the article on consensus appears to demonstrate a lack of consensus about consensus. The project page WP:Consensus, on the other hand, has some very nice flow charting, but appears to be oriented more towards writing and editing content (articles) than it is towards managing already-established policy pages. The policy page WP:Consensus (or is it a "metapolicy page") appears to me to neglect the importance of reasonable continuity in policy pages. The four or five opponents of PSTS that have regularly showed up on the talk page have set the tone of recent discussion over the past two or three months, while others have come and gone. I've long since decided not to even bother with discussing various complete rewrites, so I can be counted out as can many others. As some defenders of existing policy drop off the talk page or only comment briefly, and decide only to stand firm by reverting major changes to the policy that've been advocated mainly by these four or five participants, those users become open to charges of not participating in the talk page discussion in accordance with WP:Consensus. But there are some options in the larger view of things which may not have been adequately considered yet. For example, by consensus we could decide that one user henceforth makes all policy decisions on Wikipedia (say, Cogden, or FeloniousMonk). If the advocates at the WP:consensus policy page are persistent enough, perhaps that could work. As complainers fall off and give up, consensus would be out, and policy by persistent talk-page fiat would be in. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I wrote on a different page yesterday that consensus had become self-defeating by virtue that the requirements for reaching consensus have become so high.

“So here is the problem, Consensus is written in such a way that agreement amongst all the editors involved is implied. “Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.” Commonsense would seem to indicate that if 10 editors where involved in an effort to reach consensus on a controversial topic, the best anyone could hope for would be that six or seven would agree, two or three would still disagree but abide by the will of the majority, and that with luck no more than one would stick firmly to their position come hell or high-water. So at best your breakdown would be 7/2/1; the one alone throwing any hope of reaching a consensus beyond reach. I would have to say that having multiple editors agree on any subject is a challenge, and on controversial subjects it is unrealistic. If you compare this to a civil trial, unlike a criminal trial, there are few jurisdictions that would require unanimous consent of all jurors before returning a verdict. And that’s based upon “preponderance of the evidence”, one side's case must simply be considered more provable than the other's. Or again drawing upon the judicial system; how often do the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court reach unanimous agreement? If they can not, why should there be any hope for the rest of us?

I would say that 7/10 agreement is sufficient meet consensus and move forward. But as I look through CON, and what others have written concerning CON, I would say that WP seems to be shooting for 10/10. The higher the requirement for agreement, the easier it is to block material that is contrary to your POV, or block the removal of material that is contrary to your POV; thus the higher that the bar is set for CON, the easier it is to undermine NPOV. I wonder if CON is not written so tightly that it has become in some ways self-defeating. On the other hand I am not sure how you write 7/10ths into policy (my figure, 7/10 could just as easily be 2/3 or 6/10, or even 51/49 -but hopefully not that low.)”

Having said that, I would argue that inertia is built into policy, probably not intentionally but its there none the less. The requirement for consensus is in regards to change; or in other words maintaining the status quo happens by default until there is consensus for change. “the answer to the above question by Blueboar about whether you need consensus to change the policy or consensus period, the answer is clearly the latter.” How would this work? It would lead to a “the policy of the week” situation. Whoever had the upper hand in numbers would control policy until the other side picked up some new recruits. Stability, even when it supports imperfect policy is a necessity: period. And no policy is perfect. Brimba (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(all off-topic off course, but...)

Although your conclusion (stability over imperfection) is very sane, the block quote has one big glaring flaw: it implies that "consensus" shouldn't actually reflect agreement/harmony, but instead should reflect the will of the majority.

While 'significant majority' idea might be useful to prevent filibustering, it would also make everything steam-roller'able and would reinforce the idea of the cabal.

In effect, we turn Wikipedia into a romping ground for the testosterone-laden WP:mastadons; all it would take is a significant enough number of them and they could hijack any group of articles to do whatever they wished. This already to some extent happens with the fanatic fringe, but the checks and balances can (hypothetically) still work.

Being nice people, we ideally do take minority opinion into account. For instance right here, where the objectors to change are in the minority (even if not so in their own minds).

Further, while we don't really have to listen to the fringe now, but we might have to if there was a 'significant majority' clause. Percentage-wise, very few editors have even seen a secondary source.

Then, WP is neither a democracy nor a bureaucracy. Who's going to arbiter all those votes?

-- Fullstop (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

“Percentage-wise, very few editors have even seen a secondary source.” What ??? Are they blind? Really what are you saying? How could that be, or how can someone take such a statement at face value? Brimba (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad choice of words. "academic source," not "secondary source." (let it suffice to say you'd excuse my for considering the two synonymous if you knew what I do in real life :-)

And no, they aren't blind. Just too damn young/naive. Thus the propensity for giving weight to pop theories over academic ones, and older theories (i.e. PD sources) over current ones. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The PSTS here shouldn't be viewed as a standalone policy on the use of primary sources and secondary sources. There are also policies and guidelines in place regarding how best to evaluate reliable sources and against giving undue weight to the sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Two sides

Vassyana you claim [in the last section] there are two sides. I am not aware of two sides. I see it more as a multifaceted diamond and I am aware that different people can have different interpretations of the same text, but I think there are a lot more than two interpretations expressed on this talk page and the archives, so please explain to me what you mean by sides. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The opinions and approaches of those commenting here over the past several months can be sorted by a few different groups. Regardless, it's just a turn of phrase meaning that individuals from each major group of opinions (strong PSTS, minimal PSTS, moderate reformers, etc) have supported the proposal. If the draft is a problem for you, it'd be wonderful if you elaborate. If you don't your concerns cannot be accounted for and addressed. Vassyana (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would rather put the question the other way around what do you think you wording changes and what do you think you have not changed? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't need me to explain the difference between the standing version and the proposed replacement. If you want to know why I think it is "better", I can answer that. It is a compromise of the various opinions clearly expressed over the past months of discussion. I also believe it better reflects practice as a whole than the current version (in large part because it is based on the vigorous and diverse discourse here). For example, mentioning that certain primary sources have a broad consensus for use. If you're interested in particulars, I'd recommend looking at the couple recent draft proposals, as some issues were addressed and wording changes made in response to reasonable concerns. They will give you a good idea of how I went about incorporating various views. So, any chance you're actually going to elaborate on your own views? Vassyana (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't need you to but I would like you to explain to me what you think are the changes that you have introduced, because you have replaced the section and not made an incremental change it is hard to deduce what you think you have changed against what I think you have changed. It would help me to asses if the changes that I think you have made are intentional or just a difference in the understanding that you and I have over the two texts. For example to pick up on what you have written immediately above "mentioning that certain primary sources have a broad consensus for use", where in the current version does it prohibit the use of primary sources and why does such a statement need to be included? The reason why I am conservative over this issue is it is much easier to weigh incremental changes and my experience in the past is that large changes to policy have unforeseen consequences for how things are interpreted. One example in 002 you have the clause "unless such claims are verifiable from another source" and that can have a totally different meaning to "unless such claims are verifiable from another source". The first uses the dictionary definition of verifiable the second a Wikipedia meaning that includes the type of source that can be used for verification. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for pointing out that I missed the WP:V. That was the result of a sloppy cut/paste from the live article. The noting of broad consensus for certain primary sources was a counterweight to noting that articles should use depend on reliable secondary sources. It was included due to the concerns raised by several editors. Thank you for this excellent reply. It helps me understand why the change was problematic for you and your reasoning makes perfect sense. Do you think approaching the matter in a more incremental fashion (suggest particular replacements, removals adjustments) would be helpful? (Regardless, I'll work on piece by piece explanations of the changes for your benefit and that of others.) Vassyana (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:POLICY dispute

The wording introduced by Cogden to WP:POLICY on October 1st, which was disputed at that time, but still remains in the policy, and has since been used by Cogden to push his changes to WP:NOR are currently under dispute. I suggest all interested editors join in on that discussion, since the wording is obviously meant to affect WP:NOR policy. Dreadstar † 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar, what you are doing here and with this RfC to ad-hominem attack Cogden is way out of line.

"Since the wording is obviously meant to effect" is speculative. Cogden has not even alluded to the changed text in WP:POLICY, and even if he had, it would have been sufficient for you to note that he had written it himself. To preemptively assume that he did it because of NOR is way over the top.

But please don't turn your inability to admit a mistake for having reverted Vassanya's text into attacks on Cogden or anyone else. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting use of primary sources in controversial articles

In a discussion above, the comment was made by COGDEN: Also, since I work a lot in highly-controversial history fields, I know from experience that the greater the subject matter's controversy, the greater must be the reliance on primary sources. You don't really understand this until you work on articles in ultra-controversial fields. I'd like to revisit this discussion because that's perhaps a major lynchpin to the deadlock here. If that's the real thrust behind trying to rewrite this policy, then it should be dealt with head on first, without any further playing around with the words used. In the context of my understanding of the existing policy, from my experience in disputes in controversial articles, and from my admittedly somewhat pedestrian background in formal academic writing, this idea of bypassing claims made in the secondary sources in favor of claims from primary sources would an example of using primary sources for novel claims about the topic, ie "original research". If they weren't "novel claims", then there would be no need to deliberately bypass the secondary sources anyway. Am I missing something? Professor marginalia (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. :)

Cogden's supposition that "the greater the subject matter's controversy, the greater must be the reliance on primary source," though appropriate in a secondary source, is not desirable in an encyclopedia. We don't do research ourselves.

This is not however the "lynchpin to the deadlock," nor do I think it is "the real thrust behind trying to rewrite this policy."

The lynchpin to the deadlock is that the PSTS section is ridiculously wordy, to extend to the complete superfluity for any differentiation of "primary" versus "secondary". When sources are just sources, and the properties of "original research" are properly defined, there is no need for the junk.

The pitiful prose and internal contradictions are secondary; they are an effect of the desire/need to split hairs (which get split finer and finer and finer...).

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody should ever be able to introduce novel claims and theories into an article. Bypassing the secondary sources means, in most cases, simply quoting or otherwise-non-controversially-citing the controversial primary source, or only making the points made by the original author, without further commentary or spin. Quotation is often the best, but even direct quotations of the primary source runs afoul of the present PSTS language, if what is quoted is an analysis or conclusion by the original author. COGDEN 08:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Cogden's position on this issue is simply common sense. The Easter article used to be plagued by edit warring over the origin of the name. People would write that it was derived from the name of an Anglo-Saxon goddess, Eostre, and cite various reliable secondary sources stating this. Then someone else would come along and change the article to say this was a myth and no such goddess was ever worshiped by the Anglo-Saxons... and they would cite just as many reliable secondary sources establishing that claim. The dispute was only settled when people went back and cited the primary sources and documented the reasons for the disagreement... namely that the earliest source, Bede, had very little information to go on and may simply have gotten it wrong... or not.

Information which is or may be disputed should always be referenced to a primary source, so that people can go and see for themselves what the actual evidence is... rather than relying on someone else's secondary source interpretation. We rely on secondary sources for interpretative commentary, but when interpretations differ the primary sources are essential to understanding of the dispute. --CBD 14:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a misinterpretation, or misrepresentation, of PSTS. The use of primary sources, for example in the "Easter" article just mentioned, should be limited to the scope permitted under PSTS, which is that Wikipedia users should not make any analytical claims about Bede's writing or whatever the "primary source(s) are considered to be in that topic, and should use that source only in a way that any reasonably educated person can double-check the souce and conclude that WP's reporting of that source is accurate without possessing specialist knowledge. Do people bother to read the policy? ... Kenosis (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It could have and should have been relatively easily solved by simply documenting the various and sundry notable views of the matter. That's exactly what is demanded by the fundamental policy of neutral point of view. Also, citing the primary source in the fashion you mention sounds exactly like original research. We should be depending on secondary sources to tell us that Bede is the origin of the dispute/conflict and that he had little information to go on and therefore made incorrect assumptions. Making such an analysis ourselves is certainly original research. Vassyana (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I might also mention that the article does not seem to rely on Bede directly, but rather reports what secondary sources stated about the matter ... exactly as it should be. Vassyana (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Vassyana. The Easter article is an example of why editors need be careful about their use of such sources. Any policy wording which encourages we nobodies (ie WP editors) to cite an 8th century manuscript, written in Latin no less, to settle out or override conflicting claims in good secondary WP:RS is insanity. And a check of the Easter article shows how good editing works here--secondary sources are used to give a fairly well developed discussion of the differences of opinion among scholars about Bede's account. Even though it's hard to keep track of what the PSTS actually says anymore, I can't recall any version of it so far proposed which would disallow editors from quoting Bede. Use is allowed "with extreme caution" -- PSTS policy is excellent advice for the etymology of Easter. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, look carefully. The article does quote Bede directly, then it provides secondary commentary to Bede. This is a good example of how primary sources should be used. COGDEN 02:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, how is what I described NOT 'limiting the use of primary sources to the scope permitted under PSTS'? The use of primary sources on the origins of the name Easter is entirely consistent with this policy. As to Vassyana's claim that the matter could have been handled, "by simply documenting the various and sundry notable views of the matter"... that's precisely what WAS done, but you can't DO that without citing the primary sources that people are disagreeing about. Otherwise you are simply saying, 'some people think this, but other people think that' without providing any context. You lot seem to be disagreeing with me as vocally as possible... while advocating exactly the same thing I am. --CBD 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't cite the primary source. It cites secondary sources that discuss the primary source. I disagreed because your description sounded like original research, as I mentioned above. Vassyana (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then apparently we disagree on the meaning of the word 'cite'. I see the article quoting De temporum ratione, and call that 'citing the primary source'. You apparently don't... it's 'quoted', but not 'cited'? --CBD 17:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote is given context entirely by the secondary sources and the controversy is entirely cited to secondary sources. The quote is nice to point out what is being discussed exactly, but it's hardly essential to the article. The secondary sources do all the heavy lifting and the primary sources serves as nothing more than illustration. That's certainly not the picture you painted. Vassyana (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To prevent misinterpretation, let me be clear that the primary source quotation serves its purpose well as providing illustration to the discussion and that its use in the article is not at all inappropriate. On the contrary, the article is a good example of how a primary source should be used (complimenting its secondary source discussion). It's just that it is not at all used in the way you described, nor does it have the central place in the article material that you expressed. Vassyana (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bede is cited, as he should be. Controversial interpretations of Bede are also cited directly, as they should be. We see Bede first through Bede's own words, then there is the discussion of various commentators. This violates PSTS in another way, incidently, because a lay person who does not know Latin cannot verify it. Is that bad? No. It happens all the time, and is allowed under WP:V. COGDEN 02:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I see the Bede quote as nothing more than illustrative (though it serves the purpose well). However, knowledge of Latin is most certainly not needed to verify the passage. Copies of Bede in both Latin and English translation are easily available, even online. Regardless, the use of foreign language sources and user translations is a long standing permissable practice in Wikipedia and is not indicative of a broader rule. Though I admit I strongly disagree with this exception to the general rules of verifiability and no original research, it is a long-standing exception even if occasionally controversial. Vassyana (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Reply to Cogden's of 02:39, 14 December 2007. For a while now, I've been worrying about your and other's reading of these two passages in PSTS:

“ …anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source ”

and

“ only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge ”

in relation to hard-to-comprehend subjects such as philosophy, nuclear physics, and now Latin.

You appear to be interpreting the words to mean that the user must be able to understand what the primary source passage actually means. But, in my view, that's neither the intention nor is it what the words actually say. What they say is that the average user should be able to verify that the WP passage agrees with the primary source. Well, even without knowing Latin I could easily verify that "Eostur-monath, qui nunc paschalis mensis interpretatur..." agrees with "Eostur-monath, qui nunc paschalis mensis interpretatur..." in the published primary source.

Maybe the Bede quote is not the best example of what I'm talking about because it is somewhat muddied by the issue of translation - in my view the source of the translation should be separately cited because a translation from Latin isn't something that the average user could be expected to verify, so it isn't an appropriate inference to make from the primary source.

But anyway direct quoting like that is at one end of the spectrum. Restriction to direct quoting of statements made by Derrida would probably be a good idea too, from what I've read. At the other end of the complexity spectrum lies simple text which would be far more amenable to rephrasing. Take this diary entry for instance:

“ 1925 Monday 20 July. We got away about 10 from town. When we were about ten miles beyond Sandy - the last town - a rear tire lost a big piece of tread rubber. I assured Harry the tire would go all the way so we started on but the gear shift lever snapped off close up when he tried to shift. I shifted with a screwdriver and we went on around and had a dandy trip. ”

It would be easy for anyone to verify that a WP passage that stated: "After passing the last town they lost a large piece of tread from a tire and later the gear shift lever broke off." agrees with this source.

Most primary sources will fall between the Bede and the diary extremes and PSTS tells us to use an appropriate amount of care when using them. As the meaning in the source becomes more complex or otherwise unavailable to the average user, it becomes more important that the WP passage follows it closely, culminating in direct quotation if necessary.

Does this make sense? I wonder if the problem is the use of the word verify - perhaps confirm would have less baggage?  —SMALLJIM  13:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The above doesn't just apply to primary sources, of course. If it's right, it's a general principle for the citation of any source.  —SMALLJIM  13:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with changing verify to confirm. This has been repeated over and over, but nothing in the PSTS clause disallows editors from citing primary sources-it disallows editors from making original claims regarding primary sources. The comment above said, "The dispute was only settled when people went back and cited the primary sources and documented the reasons for the disagreement... namely that the earliest source, Bede, had very little information to go on and may simply have gotten it wrong... or not." The primary source written by Bede cannot settle such a dispute. It cannot lay claim itself to being the earliest source or the best, most accurate source, nor Bede the most esteemed authority on the matter. It cannot be used by itself to demonstrate there is a dispute among historians over its accuracy. If a WP editor were to attempt any of those claims from the primary source alone, without secondary sources, that Bede is the earliest, most accurate, or questioned by later scholars, that would be original research. Take this hypothetical: What if Bede were not a widely studied subject covered in volumes upon volumes of secondary sources, and in the midst of a dispute over the origin of the word, Easter, some WP editor were to cite as a new source the 8th century Latin manuscript, the natural question should be among editors in the dispute, what secondary source do we have that can substantiate this interpretation? If there were no secondary sources of Bede, it sure looks like original research. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresentations by all 'sides' concerned

Okay, after some thought, it clearly dawned on me that in the emotional arguing back and forth, all sides have made misrepresentations, either intentionally or unintentionally (WP:AGF).

So, I would ask that all parties use this section to list misrepresentations made by the other side. Maybe if there was a semi-complete list of examples, both sides could see the 'silliness' of their ways and begin to hammer out something that could be acceptable to both sides.

To start, let me quote Kenosis directly from a statement he made Dec. 10 in the 'The primary source section has been in the policy for three years' section above. "Dreadstar and others have already made the point that silence or lack of constant participation by everyone on the talk page w.r.t. a longstanding policy does not demonstrate widespread disagreement with the policy". Okay, this argument has been made by various parties on one side numerous times over the past few months. Yet today, on WT:POLICY, SlimVigrin stated very forcefully "This is not what consensus is when it comes to policy. Silence doesn't mean people agree".

So, in this case two parties from the same 'side' in this 'debate' are using the 'silence' argument in completely opposite usage to further their claims. It seems to me that others on this 'side' have used the same argument as well, though I don't have any other quotes handy yet. If I find them, I'll add them later.

In all fairness I know the other side has made some statements that were misrepresentations as well, though I don't have one handy at the moment, and my wife just said she's ready for dinner. I would welcome any and all further examples that people could provide. wbfergus ^Talk 23:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what SlimVirgin was referring to in this context was that silence may be the result of something they heartily disagree with having gone unnoticed. Is the next argument here that SlimVirgin's addition of tertiary sources to what was then "Primary and secondary sources" went unnoticed until Cogden (followed by several others) began advocating removing the whole PSTS section several months ago? or that the inclusion of tertiary sources was heartily disagreed with but no one bothered until nine months went by? or that the whole primary-secondary distinction was heartily disagreed with by the WP community until recent months? ... Kenosis (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

the difficulties, as i see them, became more apparent with the more frequent use of this criterion to remove articles about fiction and popular culture, which widened the ranged of people aware of it, and brought to light some of the ambiguities. Regardless of the past, the best solution would be to find some statement on which there is present consensus. DGG (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second. If people were using WP:PSTS as a criterion for WP:Notability in WP:AfDs, it was an incorrect use of PSTS. True that notability can be judged to some extent by the extent of secondary coverage of a particular topic, but it's just an incorrect use of policy, not a problem with the policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait another second, Kenosis :) You say "If people were using WP:PSTS as a criterion for WP:Notability in WP:AfDs, it was an incorrect use of PSTS." But since the end of May[12], "This page in a nutshell" on WP:N has stated "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Note that secondary sources is wikilinked directly to PSTS. According to that statement, which has survived well, the PSTS criteria are at the very heart of decisions about notability and therefore it is surely correct that they are widely referred to in that context.  —SMALLJIM  11:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually… maybe part of the problem here is that PSTS is trying to serve two purposes. The distinction between primary and secondary is important for notability, but it arguably isn't for OR (just "stick to the sources"). As it stands the definitions and usage are jumbled together, so maybe what we should do is define the source types in one subsection, and then use the next subsection to talk about how to use them, i.e. split "PS&T sources" into "PS&T sources - definitions" and "PS&T sources - usage". Apart from being neater, it should also help clarify exactly where the disputes lie. Does that sound good?  —SMALLJIM  11:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

SJ, WP:PSTS is not written to address notability issues. "WP:notability" is one of several criteria for making assessments of whether an article merits inclusion (i.e., should stay rather than be deleted). ... Kenosis (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry wb, but I have to object to this idea ... I really think it is a bad idea to rehash what people have said in the past... playing "gottcha" ends up making people defensive and less willing to talk to each other. I agree with DGG... forget the past... let's focus on finding wording that has present consensus. Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to soley play 'Gotcha'. My intention was mainly if people could bring to light all (or at least quite a few of) the various misrepresentations all sides have made, maybe we could embarass all sides enough so that people would be more thoughtful and introspective in further edits and discussions, so that some progress could actually be made again.

A couple of months ago, we were slowly working along with small changes being worked out and agreed upon or disregarded completely, but it was progress. Lately though things have just been polarized and emotional, and I think some parties in both of the two main 'camps' need some humility and distance from the issue before further progress can be made. I know I myself have made a few misrepresentations during previous discussions here as well, though they were quickly brought to light by other editors, but in my defense, they weren't intentional, I just didn't look far enough into various edit or talk histories, but I did stand corrected. I think at least 15 different editors and reverters who don't participate need to take a step or two back for a bit and really revaluate their positions and the other 'sides' position honestly before we can get back on track. wbfergus ^Talk 11:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any room for compromise?

Looking at the current state of the debate... I thing we are once again falling into three "camps" here...

• Those who have major issues with the current language of PSTS and think it needs a complete overhaul (if not deletion)
• Those who have minor issues with the current language PSTS and think it needs some re-writing at most, and tweeking at least.
• Those who have no problem with the current language of PSTS, and think it should remain as it is.

From what I can see, most of us fall into the second "camp" (although we might not all agree on any one given proposed wording) ... but any constructive edits and attepts at building a new consensus are being hindered by the extreme stance of those in the other two camps. So I have to ask two questions... 1) Can those with major issues accept that there is consensus for some form of firmly worded PSTS section to remain in this article? and 2) Can those who like the current language accept that there is consensus for some changes to be made? Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor clarification to WP:PSTS

I've changed some text in the project page here with a brief followup here. Any objections? ... Kenosis (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I do. I don't know where the idea comes from that primary sources are "extremely" close to the subject matter. Why do we need that adjective? (Note that I'm giving you the courtesy, in accordance with WP:EP of not just reverting you without comment because of "lack of consensus".) COGDEN 09:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

what is a source? Primary source, secondary source etc. But source is not now defined -- previously it was defined "is a document or person". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement "A primary source is a document or person very close to the situation being written about" appeared to me to have been a potential source of confusion because of the use of the word "person". Unlike journalists, Wikipedia users do not, or should not, use persons as primary sources, but instead use written sources or other media such as film, images, video or audio recordings. Also, "very close" didn't quite adequately capture the essence. Previously it had been discussed on this page that, for instance, published court cases arguably involve further internal documents, trial transcripts, briefs, etc. Published research studies and published experiments involve field notes and data records and such. Other primary sources may have similar elements with respect to which the participants in an article or category of article can decide what are the primary sources in their particular locale on the wiki. "Extremely close" seemed to preserve the essence of the concept but emphasized proximity to the origin of a reported fact, idea, concept, topic, theme, etc. The words "original source", I take it, are not part of Cogden's objection-- or are those words too under question? ... Kenosis (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you must have misunderstood me. I am not necessarily saying it has to be document and person (although more on that shortly). As I see it the new wording does not addressed the problem of defined what is "a source" as it defines a primary source as an "original source + or other sources". Perhaps "A primary source is a verifiable source [very/extremely] close to the origin of a particular topic..."

What is the difference between "very close" and "extremely close"?

BTW I think that the usage of a person goes back to what is a reliable source. One of the criteria for assessing what is a reliable source is the character of the person who is the author of the source. Using Wellington as an example (yet agains!) he is a primary source for the Battle of Waterloo, even when he was speaking several years after the battle, "They have altered my field of battle!" which is a quote often used to explain that the current topology of the land was significantly changed when the Lion's Hillock was constructed. The source of the quote (Wellington) makes it both reliable and primary assuming it was published in a reliable secondary source.

Also to use your court case example. I have been working on the Bosnian Genocide article there is also a Bosnian Genocide Case specifically about the ICJ judgement. I consider the ICJ judgement to be a primary source for the Bosnian Genocide as well as the Bosnian Genocide Case article and would consider the interpretation of such a source a breach of this section, and I would not like to see it argued that it was not a primary source because the judgement was not delivered until 10+ years after the events it sat in judgement on occurred and therefore is not "extremely close". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If the word "extremely" is a serious issue, then change it back to "very" and see where it goes. I made these small-but-potentially-significant changes to try to cut down on the possible sources of confusion. If "very" tends to capture where approximately the basic, admittedly not always precise, transition between primary sources to secondary sources, no problem. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, there is a request for arbitration and a request for comment regarding PSTS

FYI, Dreadstar has filed a Request for Comment here about my alleged "conduct" regarding PSTS issues on this page, and I have submitted a Request for Arbitration here. I hope everyone will take the time to comment one way or another regarding both requests, which are currently proceeding simultaneously. COGDEN 09:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick notice that I plan on commenting on both 'issues', but it's a very convoluted and multi-faceted problem, so before I do, I want to try and get all of my ducks in a row. Also, I find fault with 'both' sides and I also agree with 'both' sides on various points, so I also want to try to ensure that my comments are fair, evenly balanced, and that I research my statements as best I can within reasonable time limits (I do have other things to do). wbfergus ^Talk 11:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Draft explanation

Explanation for the text of User:Vassyana/NOR 002 was requested in a reasonable and well-thought fashion. User:Vassyana/NOR 002#Explanation is the response to this request. Please ask any further questions you may have, so I can answer them to the best of my ability. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If we split PSTS into definitions and usage...

Further to my second comment to Kenosis above[13] I'm being bold (for a change) and have prepared a revised version of PSTS at User:Smalljim/PSTS rewrite1. I haven't rewritten anything; all I have done is to move each of the paragraphs and bullets into one of two replacement subsections: "PS&T sources - definitions" and "PS&T sources - usage". I'm not submitting this as a finalized rewrite, or even as an alternative to Vassyana's rewrite, but it may help clarify where the disagreements here actually lie - is it the definitions, or the usage? To my mind though, it would be a more logical and tidy way of presenting the information. It also points up how little we presently say about what secondary sources actually are, which should be important because WP:N's "This page in a nutshell" directs readers here. Hope this helps.  —SMALLJIM  14:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look over the explanations for the text in my draft. They may or may not be useful as reference points. Vassyana (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

::I'm confused how many drafts we're considering now. I like the ""Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources - usage" in this version, but support merging another suggestion from below to secondary sources clause so it would say something like: "Secondary sources. Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims about primary sources are included in Wikipedia articles, use secondary sources rather than original analysis by Wikipedia editors. However, the claims can be biased by the views of their author(s) and/or publisher, so caution is required to preserve the neutral point of view. Care should also be taken to avoid undue weight and ensure the information cited is used in context." Professor marginalia (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Wrong one! Professor marginalia (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't consider this as an alternative draft for consideration to replace the existing PSTS - I'm behind Vassyana's developing rewrite for that, and I certainly don't want to start a "my version is better than yours" war! I've changed the header to remove that impression. It was simply an idea that arose out of an earlier comment about the need to maintain the primary/secondary distinction for WP:N, but (probably) not for OR. I also thought that splitting it like this may help clarify in which parts of the present section the main disagreements here lie (I think it's pretty clear that they're mostly about PS usage, with some on PS definition). I note from later comments below that some see definition and usage as being inextricably bound together, so I assume they wouldn't want to see them split in this fashion anyway.  —SMALLJIM  14:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks- Professor marginalia (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources

The secondary sources paragraph of the draft seems fairly uncontroversial, and agreeable to some who object to the overall change. Basically, it would replace the current secondary sources paragraph with (ref tags no-wiki'd for ease of view):

Secondary sources are references that draw on research and other references to make interpretive, analytical, or synthesized claims, or create a general overview.<ref>[http://lib1.bmcc.cuny.edu/help/sources.html Borough of Manhattan Commmunity College, A. Philip Randolph Memorial Library, "Research Help:Primary vs. Secondary Sources"] notes that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets primary sources", is a "second-hand account of an historical event" or "interprets creative work". It also states that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets research results" or "analyzes and interprets scientific discoveries".</ref><ref>[http://www.nationalhistoryday.org/SecondarySources.htm The National History Day website] states simply that: "Secondary sources are works of synthesis and interpretation based upon primary sources and the work of other authors."</ref> Secondary sources are usually preferable because they generally provide analysis, offer a more independent view and provide a broader context for the subject. However, they can be biased by the views of their author(s) and/or publisher, so caution is required to preserve the neutral point of view. Care should also be taken to avoid undue weight and ensure the information cited is used in context.

For a view of how this looks without nowiki tags:

Secondary sources are references that draw on research and other references to make interpretive, analytical, or synthesized claims, or create a general overview. Secondary sources are usually preferable because they generally provide analysis and a broader context for the subject, and usually offer a more independent view. However, they can be biased by the views of their author(s) and/or publisher, so caution is required to preserve the neutral point of view. Care should also be taken to avoid undue weight and ensure the information cited is used in context.

• Trailing sentences removed, as they require a separate discussion.[14]
• Revised based on SmallJim's suggestions.[15]
• Added statement about using secondary sources for the interpretation of primary sources, per Professor marginalia.[16]
• Revised based on SmallJim's suggestions.[17]
• Draft moved to live policy. Trailing sentence removed (see subsection below). 23:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning for the text may be viewed at: User:Vassyana/NOR 002/Secondary. Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks excellent to me. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It does have the problem that the footnote is only helpful for articles on historical events or phenomena. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just the footnote from the current version of policy. I'll see if I can find another to compliment it. Vassyana (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the footnote with two footnotes. One that included both humanities and scientific definitions, and the other a succinct definition. Vassyana (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. The footnote can be expanded or generalized to include other type of material that is not historical. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent Vassyana, except for the last two sentences which endeavor to replace the concept of tertiary sources. I'd like to hear opinions of, say SlimVirgin, FeloniousMonk and some other seasoned editors who've handled significant content disagreements in the article namespace that actually involved PSTS. But other than the last two sentences, I'd support it as an immediate replacement for the present paragraph on secondary sources. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Including the last two sentences don't require the deprecation of the tertiary source category, though I admit that it is their purpose by addressing the sole substantiated point about tertiary sources. Vassyana (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I advocate simply using it as a replacement for the current version of the secondary-source paragraph. My sense is that if it goes in without the last two sentences (after the words "neutral point of view"), SlimVirgin and FeloniousMonk would likely find it acceptable, a supposition based on prior conversations I've had with these two seasoned WP admins. If I'm wrong they can take it out of my hide, so to speak. I'll certainly defend the basic explanation that is proposed for secondary sources, maybe give or take a word or two, though that would be very minor quibbling. The overall sense of the paragraph faithfully represents the spirit of the policy, IMO. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) To be a bit cynical, it's nice that they've spoken to you about such matters, but it would be nicer if they discussed it here with the rest of the class. Without the deprecation of the tertiary category, what would be the problem with the closing two sentences? Vassyana (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm only telling you my sense of it. This proposed replacement is defensible IMO to both SlimVirgin and FeloniousMonk, so long as it doesn't mess with the basic PSTS approach that is currently in place. These two very experienced admins are not out for blood, only to defend the basic policy that's been in place for quite some time because the policy has been shown to work once people understand it. That's my opinion, and if it's wrong then one or the other of these particular defenders of the longstanding policy will surely correct me. My point is to try inserting it without messing with the overall approach and see where it goes. I personally will assist in defending the proposed language, stopping at the words "neutral point of view" in the proposed draft. The reason for stopping at those words is that the last two sentences are essentially designed to take the place of what is presently written in the paragraph on "tertiary sources". SlimVirgin was the one who added tertiary sources to the "formula" over a year ago and continues to support the basic approach, and thus I believe I can defend it to her so long as the replacement paragraph doesn't negate this. FeloniousMonk, who I have had more direct conversations with in the context of articles related to intelligent design, also supports the basic PSTS approach presently in place, and the version proposed above is consistent with my understanding of why he defends the current policy. In other words, in my opinion the proposal is fine, indeed a welcome improvement, except for the last two sentences. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. Please pardon my frustration, as I should not direct it at you. I do believe they are acting completely in good faith, however it not only fails to be helpful but is downright disruptive when they will not join in the discussion and substantiate their objections. I've removed the last two sentences because they obviously require a separate discussion of their own. (They can always be tackled after we finish with this particular proposal. It's fairly clear we need to address any changes piece by piece.) I've revised the language a bit based on SmallJim's excellent suggestions. If you have further suggestions or criticisms, I'd be happy to see what we can do to address them. Vassyana (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

For what they are worth, here are my suggested alterations:

"Secondary sources are references that draw on research and other((a)) references to make interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims, or create a general overview.[2] Secondary sources are usually the best references to cite((b)) because they ((c)) provide analysis and a broader context for the subject and usually also offer a more independent view((d)). However, they can be biased by the views of their author(s) and/or publisher, so caution is required to preserve the neutral point of view((e)). Care should also((a)) be taken to avoid undue weight and ensure the information cited is used in context. ((f))References that provide a broad treatment, such as other encyclopedias((g)) and university-level textbooks summarize((h)) large bodies of literature and research, so they can be((i)) useful for avoiding original synthesis and undue weight."

• a. phrasing
• b. expand for clarity
• c. rm redundant word
• d. reorganize sentence for clarity and style and...
• e. sentence moved and rephrased so it flows from previous idea.
• f. tentatively remove "review articles". Offhand I don't know what they are, so will others?
• g. tentative addition
• h. simplify
• i. run-on, simplify and rephrase

Hope this helps,  —SMALLJIM  17:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say that your suggestions and feedback have been consistently well-thought, constructive and helpful. Vassyana (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

--
Taking all so far noted comments into consideration, these are my suggestions,...
(matches original points but not original sentence-for-sentence; explanation follows in second part. Leading phrases in square brackets identify the "point" of what follows and are not necessarily intended to be part of the text itself).

1. [What is a secondary source]
   A Secondary source is a "work that interprets or analyzes" a previously described event or phenomena. "It is generally at least one step removed from the [previously described] event. Examples include scholarly or popular books and articles, reference books, and textbooks."
2. [Why a secondary source is important to NOR]
   These secondary sources are always preferable because they put the subject that they are being cited for into perspective, both in relation to analysis of events and phenomena, and also in relation to previous discussions of the subject. Were it not for the breath/perspective provided by secondary sources, an article could only contain literal but disjoint statements, and the suggestion of relationship between them would constitute original research.
3. [Why a secondary source gives N/WEIGHT/RS]
   Use of secondary sources is also crucial to establish the weight of a statement: An evaluative (either explicit or implicit) statement^{here I'm speaking of something citing a PS, but am not explicitly using the term 'PS' for obvious reasons} that is not (also) confirmed by any secondary source is an evaluation that does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedic article, and may be removed on sight.
4. [Why a secondary source is important to NPOV]
   Secondary sources are essential to maintaining a neutral point of view, which is another cornerstone of Wikipedia policy. For one, a source that provides perspective cannot be "balanced" with a source that does not. For another, the representation of various points of view - which are inherently evaluative - can only occur through concomitant use of secondary sources.

Explanations, by way of close-reading of the original (point numbers refer to sentence # in the original):

1. The rewrite as point #1 above because, as Carl points out, the quotation refers specifically to "historical event[s] or phenomen[a]," and as such doesn't directly back up the generalization that it is being quoted for. However, that problem can be avoided by putting the quotation inline and replacing "historical" with a paraphrase to express what you understand by it. (Inline also because there is no reason to both paraphrase and quote a simple sentence such as this).
   For reasons mentioned in the next point, I don't think the examples of the quotation are a good idea, but I've left them in because they are part of the quotation. To replace these with other examples would itself be OR :p. Such is the danger of using a quotation that doesn't match perfectly.
2. I've coalesced sentence #2, #5 and #6 since all three describe what intrinsic value secondary sources have in articles. I've then used the three to bring the relationship to NOR into focus, which in the original isn't explicit at all.
   In the paraphrase, I've avoid explicit examples ("university-level textbooks") because that is a can of worms that we do not want to open again. (I can almost already hear '"university-level textbook" in China is not an authority on Mao'). We should explicitly identify the feature that makes a source ideal, not identify features by way of example, which is always going to be subject to (mis)interpretation.
3. ... and ...
4. Both Care should be taken to avoid undue weight and ensure the information cited is used in context.
   and Secondary sources may be biased by the views of its author(s) and/or publisher, so caution is required to preserve the neutral point of view
   are not issues specific to secondary sources, and should be dealt with in the general discussion of sources (which they already are).
   Both issues are re-addressed with a focus specifically on the "analytical" qualities of secondary sources in my suggestions as points #3 and #4
5. ... and ...
6. folded into my point #2 above.

Also, bullets/numbers should perhaps be retained so that people citing policy can refer to the specific points by number. Or, perhaps during the draft phase put a little ^(#n) before each sentence.
-- Fullstop (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Use of secondary sources is also crucial to establish the weight of a statement: An evaluative (either explicit or implicit) statement^{here I'm speaking of something citing a PS, but am not explicitly using the term 'PS' for obvious reasons} that is not (also) confirmed by any secondary source is an evaluation that does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedic article, and may be removed on sight." prohibits using any evaluative statements from the first scholarly publication on a topic until the statement is backed up in a secondary source. This is unacceptable. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

wow. thats helpful. Why not try rephrase it as you would like to have it?

While I don't disagree with your view of what constitutes a P source, but thats not the cookie thats being crumbled here. Per NOR, your "first scholarly publication on a topic" is a secondary source, not a primary one. This is because:

a) it is academic (since p and s are mutually exclusive, and p = non-academic, academic must be s)

b) it is analytical (since the defining characteristic of s is "interpretive or analytical")

So, chill. Your source is "acceptable" after all. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your point #1 is completely irrelevant as the citation was changed to better reflect the broader usage a few hours before your comments. Another problem is the absolute language used, which is obviously not going to attain consensus. While I appreciate your effort, your suggestions and analysis are problematic in a number of ways. Vassyana (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The passage I find unacceptable includes the sentence "A Secondary source is a 'work that interprets or analyzes' a previously described event or phenomena". So the first scholarly publication on a topic is a primary source by this definition (unless the event or phenomena has been described in an unscholarly publication first). Therefore my analysis was correct and the prohibition on evaluative statements from primary sources is unacceptable.

As for rephrasing it as I would like it goes, I prefer the existing policy to the passage we are discussing (which is not to say the existing policy is optimum). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone comes up with a problem I have overlooked, I would agree to Vassyana editing into the policy the above blockquoted text, but without the last two sentences (as Kenosis suggests) and then start a discussion on if the last two should be used to replace or complement Tertiary sources. (I think it is much better to introduce focused changes and not try to change too much in one go.) I also agree with Gerry and could add another couple of problems I see with Fullstop's suggestions. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

so, lets hear them! :) Since what I wrote is based on my understanding of what Vassyana wrote, then by identifying the problems with my suggestion, we can perhaps identify problems with Vassyana's. Understand what I mean?

Also, if Gerry's objection is valid (i.e. that the "first scholarly publication on a topic" is also a primary source), then not only is Vassyana's definition screwed, so is NORs. What Gerry notes is one of the fundamental objections to the PSTS section.

-- Fullstop (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding Gerry (he's free to correct me), his point is that your suggestion would define them thusly, not that they are such a source. Also, I do not believe criticisms of your suggestions would provide light on my proposal. For example, I do not use absolute language such as "always", nor do I even imply that information should be "removed on sight", as examples. Vassyana (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to decide whether the first scholarly publication is a primary source or not. I think the definitions in various fields of scholarship are too entrenched for Wikipedia to adopt its own definition, just as the U.S. transportation authorities gave up on trying to use the proper meaning of "inflammable" and now use "flammable" instead. Wikipedia policy should be framed so that it does not matter whether the first scholarly publication is a primary or secondary source. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. The law of primacy is a motherlover. ;o) Vassyana (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Gerry Ashton's comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, "the definitions in various fields of scholarship are too entrenched for Wikipedia to adopt its own definition" is absolutely right. So where does that leave the PSTS section, or for that matter this talk section? :) -- Fullstop (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

While it's no secret that I also agree (I pushed for a caveat about varying definitions and support the idea of a terminology change), that's a whole can of worms unto itself. I'd recommend continuing to work on reviewing and revising the section as agreeable. Doing away with the primary/secondary distinction, even if it's just to use other terms, is going to highly contentious and require it's own collector's volume of discussion. ;o) Vassyana (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, regardless of whether we like it or not, since "secondary" is under discussion, we might as well make the most of it.

Issue 1: the secondary bit as it stands now needs something to relate to NOR.

Issue 2: if primary could (might) be defined as being what secondary isn't, then by making the secondary def independent of the primary def we might subsequently avoid the hedging/hair-splitting on what primary is.

Or, to apply the US-DOT (in)flammable analogy: when "secondary sources" is adequately well defined, all references to "primary sources" can be replaced with "non-secondary sources."

With that, its possible to have the cake and eat it too. As far as "primary" goes, there would be no (need for) terminology change because there would no terminology to change.

Get it? :) -- Fullstop (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Fullstop is assuming the conclusion. Fullstop does not want to let evaluative statements that occur only in primary sources into articles, thus, any definition of primary source must exclude any desireable source of evaluative statements. The existing NOR definition of primary source could easily be read as including the first scholarly publication on a topic, but it is not screwed, because the existing NOR policy does not prohibit using evaluative statements from primary sources.

The definition of a source and what one may do with the source are thoroughly intertwined. I almost wish the Wikipedia edit software could be made so that when an editor changed a single character in a source definition, the policy about what one could do with sources would be automatically blanked, and the editor would have to rewrite that part of the policy. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

aaah! I see where you're coming from now. No, actually the point wasn't to 'not let evaluative statements that occur only in primary sources into articles'. Instead, the point was that secondary sources contribute to the weight of notability of a subject, while primary sources don't. The corollary being what N already expresses, which is that a subject that has no secondary sources is non-notable.

In other words: If an article that has no secondary sources fails notability, then: This implies that the sources that does have are not secondary. (whether these non-secondary sources are evaluative or not is moot).

-- Fullstop (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

ps: My whole point of not even mentioning primary sources is the same as what you expressed with your flammable/inflammable analogy: Its not necessary to walk the tightrope with one if you can properly frame the other.

There is a vast difference between a topic being notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article about it, and a statement being notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. A topic with no secondary sources is unlikely to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, but a statement from a primary source may very well be worth adding to an article even though it is never mentioned in a secondary source. Then again, some statements that propose controversial or unlikely hypotheses may not be worth mentioning unless they are mentioned in secondary sources; it depends on the nature of the statement. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Gerry, you're preaching to the choir. Read what I wrote in the context of the suggestion, which is itself a response to something else. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's close, but maybe melding best parts of this and section above. "Secondary sources are references that draw on research and other references to make interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims, or create a general overview.[1][2] Secondary sources are usually preferable because they generally provide analysis, offer a more independent view and provide a broader context for the subject. Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims about primary sources are included in Wikipedia articles, use secondary sources rather than original analysis by Wikipedia editors. Those views can reflect the biases of their author or publisher, so caution is required etcetera." Professor marginalia (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A very sensible and excellent suggestion. I've added the phrase as a closing statement, as it seems very appropriate to close on that note, considering the policy context. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a general comment. I'm pretty impressed by the civility and teamwork from people on both side of the issue in this section the last couple of days. It's a marked difference from how things were before. The litmus test though will be to see what happens after changes are physically made to the policy. wbfergus ^Talk 12:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words above, Vassyana - I'll try to live up to them! Re-reading after a night's sleep has brought a few more points to my mind:

• I don't think the average editor will understand what "synthetic claims" are. They sound like they are made out of cheap plastic; or worse, something that's completely made-up. I'm not sure that the mention of "works of synthesis" in footnote2 is enough to explain. Would a wl to synthesis help, or wikt:synthesis? Or a separate explanatory footnote? I can't yet think of a reasonable rewording.
• Can I again suggest reordering sentence 2 thus: "Secondary sources are usually preferable because they generally provide analysis and a broader context for the subject, and usually offer a more independent view. However, they can be biased..." That's saving you a "provide" and putting the bit that the next sentence is going to qualify at the end so it flows neatly into it.
• The new last sentence uses the word "primary" which I think you're trying to avoid. For consistency, should it also use the same phrasing "interpretive, analytical…" as the first?
• That last sentence also suggests to me that the "original analysis by WP editors" already exists, like the secondary sources do. I don't think that's the intention - it's really trying to say "don't do it yourself" isn't it?

Hope this helps,  —SMALLJIM  15:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I replaced "synthetic" with "synthesized" to help avoid the "artificial" meaning (no pun) of synthetic(s). I reordered the sentence per your suggestion. I replaced that phrase in the trailing sentence with "using your own analysis". Vassyana (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that "Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims about primary sources are included in Wikipedia articles, use secondary sources rather than using your own analysis." adds anything that is not already in Primary Sources, so although it is not a show stopper for me, I think as it makes this new paragraph slightly more verbose and less targeted than it needs to be. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I did not realizes there had been a major discussion prior to Vassyana’s edit. I hit the link that the edit summery referred to, but it goes to WP:NOT, rather than here. OK, having said that, what does “*Secondary sources are references that draw on research and other references” bring to the table that “*Secondary sources draw on primary sources” does not? I see no mention of primary sources, and under the new wording, I can imagine a LOT of circular referencing (Jones quotes Smith, Smith quotes Green, Green quotes Jones) going on. It’s the “other references” part that bothers me. I have not read the talk page yet, or not enough to understand what you are tying to get at here. Brimba (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, evil QWERTY typos! ;) Essentially, it comes down to the fact that secondary sources are usually not exclusively based on primary sources. In some fields, especially within humanities and mathematics, it's not at all uncommon for there to be a heavy reliance on other secondary sources. The wording may indeed be clumsy and if you have some alternate suggestions they'd be welcomed. Also, for the trailing sentence of your edit, please check review the wording immediately below, which was left out for further comment. Vassyana (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Implemented

I've added the section except the final statement to the live policy. I think it would be good to get a little more feedback about it before adding it to the live page. As a reminder, that closing sentence is:

Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims about primary sources are included in Wikipedia articles, use secondary sources rather than using your own analysis.

What do people think of adding that as a closing statement for the secondary sources paragraph? Vassyana (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on what's been done to your text since you made it "live", Vassyana, what I think is that you're obviously wasting your time, talents and insights trying to get anything changed here. I have no doubt you're feeling extremely frustrated again. I wonder if writing an essay would be a more profitable avenue to explore? Some essays are widely read and cited, WP:BEANS for instance. Maybe you could build up a wider consensus via that route. Hope this helps,  —SMALLJIM  11:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I walked away in frustration already. I'm not doing so at this juncture. I'm not going to let basic consensus building and discussion be brushed away with frustration and "bold" editing. Vassyana (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you might be right. I received a warning exhorting to use the talk page and respect consensus for ... enforcing actively discussed changes.[18] This from a person who claims his views aren't views, but Foundation level policy,[19] who hasn't bothered to join in the discussion of the changes or bothered to propose his own changes.[20] It's sickening and tiresome. Vassyana (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Grace period?

Can we delete an uncited info just immidiatly after its addition or should we have a grace period? I mean if someone added an uncited info, should't we give it the benefit of the doubt and wait some time before deleting it? If you agree on this grace period, then how long is it? Is there any policy for it or just it is up to people?Farmanesh (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is more of a verifiability question. There's a decent amount of tension between immediate removal and letting it ride nigh forever. Generally, unless the information included is about a living person or is blatantly wrong, it's considered a bit rude just to remove the information. If the fact or claim is completely noncontroversial (like say, the earth revolves around the sun), no citation is needed. If you think it's appropriate to challenge the claim, adding {{fact}} at the end of the statement to alert editors to the need for a reference is common practice. It would also be considerate to leave a polite message for the user who added the information requesting a source for the claim. If after a reasonable amount of time (at least a few weeks) a source cannot be found, it would be appropriate to remove the statement. If you can, find a reference for the article claim yourself. If you find a reliable source that does not completely match the article statement, go ahead and cite the source and rewrite the article claim to match the reference. Hope that helps! Vassyana (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. But it seems very arbitary, basically it depends on the mood a person is in. As far as policy goes anyone can go around and immidiatly delete anything without citation. Policy-wise is that a fair say? If so where can we give suggestion to add this to wiki policies a reasonable grace period if it doesn't involve vandalism or live people?Farmanesh (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material. With respect to the grace period, Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources might be the good place to ask. I remember reading somewhere that "a month" was sufficient, but I can't remember where I saw that. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Journal articles

Hi there, this policy is pretty confusing. Are journal articles, such as PMID 18052346 primary or secondary sources? I know the data in the article (such as the numbers in the figures and tables) are primary, but is the article as a whole a secondary source? This question isn't about changing the policy (I know better than to try!) but this needs clarification. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? Are you making any claims, statements, etc. that aren't already in print? If they are printed, verifiable an reliable, what difference does it really make if you or other editors are not making any claims or conclusions about the work? Either way, primary, secondary or tertiary, the statements should be sourced, so that any reasonable person can look at the Wikipeadia article and the reference and see that they say the same thing in the same context. If so, it's not original. wbfergus ^Talk 16:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It matters because people are starting to argue that if an article does not have "secondary" sources it fails notability. Even if the article contains several journal articles about the subject as references. See for example User_talk:ProteinBoxBot#Notability - Tim Vickers (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim, you're arguing on that page that journal articles are secondary sources. They're not, if they're written by the people directing involved in a piece of research. A primary source is written by someone very close to the issue at hand, directly involved in it, or an observer of some kind. The reason we require secondary sources (written by uninvolved people) is to check that the issue is really notable i.e. that people not involved find it as interesting as people who are involved. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what has happened here, though in a roundabout way. The NIH has decided that the subject is notable, hence the inclusion of the data through their website. They don't include every piece of 'health' related literature, they actually make their own decisions on whether something is notable enough to warrant inclusion. They themselves have therefore become a secondary source, and notablity is met.

Okay, here's my opinion.

1. The user there has created his own definition of notability, that very much appears quite different from WP:NOTE.
2. It appears in the context you are using them, they would be secondary sources. Some of the data may be primary source, but if the journal itself is one of multiple sources used for the article, then there is a good chance that it would meet the notability requirements.

Again, these are my opinions, but that's how I would see the (non-)issue there. wbfergus ^Talk 17:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Further comment. I see that the site you reference is NIH, a government web site, that is providing the article from another publication. Being in the government, I can say that rarely does the government (at least within my 'Department of XYZ') even use primary source data, unless generated in house first. Next, if the government does publish something, especially in the scientific field, it does go through a rigorous peer-review process (in my agency, around 2-3 years) before getting published. So, I would have a fairly high degree of confidence that articles listed on that site alone would meet the notability criteria by any definition. wbfergus ^Talk 17:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that pretty much matches my interpretation of what a "secondary" source is. Is this a controversial definition? I wish the policy was a bit clearer, since we are obviously having difficulty understanding it unambiguously. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A journal article outlining a study written by the people involved in the study would be a primary source of information about that study. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Citing the NIH website itself makes the NIH a secondary source that uses a (maybe) primary source. NIH is a highly regarded source of information within their area of expertise. If NIH has decided to allow the inclusion of the article on their website, they must have already made the decision that the subject is notable, and that is the entire breadth of this 'controversy'. wbfergus ^Talk 17:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Journal articles make generalizations and interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims, this is what the discussion and conclusion sections of an article are for. If journal articles themselves (not the raw data they contain in the results section) are indeed primary, the definition of secondary used here is incorrect and would need to be changed. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It just goes to help highlight how problemmatic these Wikipedia specific definitions are, even if they are loosely based on the Library sciences. There are many other fields other than just library sciences with different definitions. It further complicated that these terms and definitions are included in a policy, rather than a guideline that is more open to interpretation. Polices shouldn't be open to interpretation. wbfergus ^Talk 17:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Two issues are getting mixed together here. Secondary sources are needed to establish notability of a research topic or finding. Primary sources, on the other hand, are better for showing what the finding actually was. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of WP, peer-reviewed articles that analyze data, draw conclusions, or make interpretations are considered secondary sources. The actual data gathered in experiments is considered a primary source. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl, who says this? ... Kenosis (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, that's how I've generally seen peer-reviewed scientific literature treated (like secondary sources). Vassyana (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My brain hurts. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have the agree with CBM. Slim's broad version of "primary sources" would essentially limit many academics topics to tertiary sources for establishing notability. This is especially true in the humanities, where nearly all secondary sources (assuming tertiary sources are not counted as secondary sources) include original research of their own, which would make them primary sources under Slim's assertion. Vassyana (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:PSTS has nothing to do with WP:Notability. Notability is a term used to denote whether an article is adequately notable, or if you prefer, sufficiently noteworthy, to be included in Wikipedia. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I agree. When we wrote WP:ATT as a replacement for NOR and V, we tried to make the definitions clearer, but there was nothing but fighting so we gave up. The following is from an early version of ATT (and it could easily be expanded to discuss journal articles):

Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. The Bible is a primary source. The White House's summary of a George Bush speech is a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources; for example, anyone could try to use the Bible as evidence that God said homosexuality was a sin. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should not interpret the source material, but should simply describe it. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. A journalist's account of a traffic accident is a secondary source. A theologian's account of what the Bible says is a secondary source. A New York Times account of a George Bush speech is a secondary source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read the primary source material for themselves. As a rule, we want to know what Professor Smith, the theologian, says about the Bible and homosexuality, and not what User:Smith says about it, even though both are relying on the same source material.

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In articles on ancient architecture, the ruins themselves are a primary source. If someone else comes along and draws (and publishes) a layout of the ruins, especially if parts are missing so the author concludes how it must have been, then that is a secondary source. wbfergus ^Talk 18:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

congratulations all for demonstrating once again how not-a-good-idea the words "primary" and "secondary" are, that it undermines other policies (here notability), and that it is less painful to invoke common sense (aka WP:IAR) than butt heads with the ambiguities/contradictions of PSTS. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we've got this sorted now. Professor Smith, publishes a paper where he discovers that a type of bacteria has a novel gene sequence X in it and he interprets this to show the bacteria are descended from group P of bacteria, rather than group Q. Citing Professor Smith that the bacteria are descended from group P is using the paper as a secondary source - something that has analysed and interpreted data. Doing your own analysis on sequence X and saying the Professor is wrong is using the paper as a primary source. Is this correct? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Professor Smith can analyse all he likes -- he is the primary source, and if we describe his analysis, we are still only describing. It's when we want to analyse Smith's views, or use them to make a point, that we need to find a secondary source who supports what we're saying.

The more controversial the topic, the greater the care we have to take to rely on secondary sources for any contentious point. What we're basically saying to editors is -- check that other writers agree with how you're using this material. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim, sorry, I misread your last sentence. Just to clarify -- you wrote: "Doing your own analysis on sequence X and saying the Professor is wrong is using the paper as a primary source."

Yes, but any use of the paper is the use of a primary source. Professor Smith's paper is a primary source. When we say: "Professor Smith said X," we are using the primary source correctly. We are just saying what was in the paper. What we can't do is slip it into an inappropriate context, or join it with other primary sources to make a point none of those sources has made (which would be a synthesis of the kind not allowed by NOR). That is, we have to be very careful never to go beyond what the source himself has said. If we want to go beyond it, we must find a secondary source -- an article about Professor Smith's paper -- that makes the points we want to make, or that uses Smith's paper in the ways we want to use it, if we want to use it to support a point we're making. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your source classification. For starters, it essentially "breaks" notability. See my response to CBM above. Additionally, this would conflict with the definition of secondary sources in the proposed replacement above. Vassyana (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Which part do you disagree with? It's a description that is entirely in keeping with how the terms are used. Where is the proposed re-definition of secondary sources? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that a source is primary "if they're written by the people directing involved in a piece of research". As I said, that makes quite a large number of academic sources primary, including most humanities sources. I think that is a significantly more broad interpretation than the norm. The proposal for the secondary sources replacement is at the appropriately named Wikipedia talk:No original research#Secondary sources. Vassyana (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, as above, WP:PSTS has nothing to do with WP:Notability. Notability is a term used to denote whether an article is adequately notable, or if you prefer, sufficiently noteworthy, to be included in Wikipedia. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability's usage of "secondary sources" is dependent on PSTS. It's even directly linked in N's "in a nutshell". Vassyana (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I'm glad it's not just me. I asked Kenosis about this before.[21] His reply[22] did not help. I'd be very grateful if you could explain, Kenosis, because I honestly do not understand what you mean.  —SMALLJIM  10:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, if it's that confusing, the link from WP:Notability to WP:PSTS should be removed, and if need be, replaced with a self-standing definition. Note that WP:Notability also links to WP:Reliable sources. I find it difficult to believe it's that confusing to editors who are as articulate as the two who just stated this. Notability is, as would be apparent at this stage of reading into WP policy by Vassyana and Smalljim, a separate standard having to do with setting a principle to establish worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia. In other words, pick a topic-- just about any topic: if it hasn't been discussed by secondary sources, it ain't notable for purposes of discussing WP:Notability. Here, in WP:PSTS, secondary sources are required for analysis and synthesis of such primary source. Other than to poke holes or argue that the "vox populi" won't have a clue, what's the problem with this overlap where the editors of WP:Notability have chosen to draw on the present definition of secondary sources offered in WP:NOR? If the recently proposed text for "secondary sources" is inserted (the one with all the extra commentary about undue weight and NPOV and such, maybe it would be sensible to go over to WP:Notability and remove that link, or perhaps even to link cross-namespace to the article on secondary sources. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Kenosis. It was most illuminating.  —SMALLJIM  16:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, that approach may work, but wouldn't it ("replaced with a self-standing definition") eventually be yet another point of confusion for Wikipeia editors, where another definition of 'source-typing' would be allowed to morph into something different from other usages on Wikipedia? Wouldn't having one common defintion somewhere on Wikipedia be much more consistent for all of Wikipedia and all Wikipedians, even if it did remain here? All articles, guidelines, policies, etc. link to the same exact definitions to avoid any confusion or subsequent morphing factors. Otherwise, the confusion factor would explode if every article, guideline or policy was 'allowed' to create their own unique definition of something that has so much carry-over into other areas. Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 14:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The standard at WP:Notability is essentially reduced in the nutshell, by those who participated in that guideline, to (1) whether there is a sufficient number of secondary sources written about the topic, beyond the primary source of that topic, to deem it adequately noteworthy to have an article about it, and (2) whether such secondary sources are deemed sufficiently reliable to have an article about it. Thus, the concept of primary and secondary sources, in conjunction with the concept of reliable sources, is used in that analysis. Is this potentially confusing in and of itself? I suppose it can be. Add another use of "secondary sources", is it potentially more confusing? Sure. Add annother use of "reliability" (in WP:V, is it potentially more confusing? Absolutely. Add WP:NPOV, is it yet more confusing? I should think so. Add the concept of WP:Undue weight--more confusing? Yep. Add the concept of WP:Consensus, is it more confusing? Ah yes. Add the various other ins-and-outs of the policy pages, and is it a set of policies that no one can necessarily feel secure that every edit they make can be stricly defended on a policy basis, as in "hey, I'm a followin' the law here!"? Yes. It's editorial policy in an open-source encyclopedia that anyone can edit, which by way of being an editorial policy necessarily includes a range of discretion by the editor and the possiblity that others may disagree. Is there a cut-and-dried solution to the problem that disagreements will occur? No-- absolutely not. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you are coming from and agree (more or less) with what you said. But, I think maybe I didn't articulate my question well enough. If this policy haas one definition of 'secondary sources', and the article secondary sources had a different definition, and the notability had yet it's own (eventual) definition, they could all easily take off on different paths, using different fields of study as the basis for their definitions. This (NOR's) definition could be based on library science and/or histriography, 'Secondary sources' based on Engineering, and 'Notability' based upon science (whatever those definitions turn out to be. Rather than creating a 'sphaghetti code' effect of making users follow a circuitous route back and forth, jumping from one policy, guideline, or article to another trying to get to the definition they feel meets their needs, wouldn't it be far more beneficial to all Wikipedia users to just have one 'place' to go to, where the varying definitions could be aggregated into one cohesive collection, even if broken out by 'subject matter'? For instance, separate sections for what constitutes PSTS for each field of study, (very) roughly similar to the 'Various Examples' in the Sandbox here? There would of course be varying definitions, but it would be easier to quickly see which definition applied to which 'case', rather than jumping around through 15 different articles and still possibly missing the correct one. Thansk again. wbfergus ^Talk 15:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, wbfergus, but I think it would be unworkably complex. I've said elsewhere that the only way we could develop uncontentious policy definitions of what we want "primary" and "secondary" sources to mean would be to invent our own new terms for them. (I think I suggested Wiki Type A, and Wiki Type B sources). But that won't happen, for obvious reasons.  —SMALLJIM  15:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be pretty strange to be discouraged from citing the conclusions of a peer-reviewed article in Nature or Science, and encouraged instead to rely on reports on the research in sources such as newspapers, which will be much less accurate and reliable. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Yes it would be pretty strange if that's what the policy said, but it's not what the policy says. The policy gives fairly specific limits to how to use primary sources, whatever the consensus on a given topic may judge the primary sources to be. (Journal articles are not necessarily primary by merit of being journal articles, nor are they necessarily secondary by merit, as someone said earlier, of being peer reviewed). It's not that much of a problem in comparison to the overall effort expended in researching and editing a topic where there are points of potential confusion, or sources that contradict one another, or economically or politically influenced disputes among the available sources. Numerous articles have successfully used the PSTS approach in balancing their sourcing so that primary sources are quoted and attributed where relevant or closely paraphrased in such a way that reasonably educated persons without specialist knowledge can go check it and arrive at a consensus that the source says what the WP article says it says. Where interpretation is involved, you're going to need secondary sources. If, as Tim Vickers mentions, the only options are (1) an article in Nature introducing a new topic or theory, and (2) the newspaper reports, then the newspaper reports are likely to contain quotes of what other competent scientists and researchers say about the new topic or theory in the Nature article. If it's been in the newspapers, then other scientists and researchers will publish secondary sources about the particular topic or theory shortly enough (these days the first responses often are out on the web before the hard copy even actually hits the news stands). Thus the choices are not limited to the "primary source(s)" (whatever the local consensus at an article deems this to be w.r.t. that particular topic or part of an article) and the unreliable pop science and mass-market journalism. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Only if you're going to analyse, Tim. If you're just reporting, the primary sources are fine. And for analysis, it doesn't have to be a newspaper. Nature is fine as a secondary source too. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the issue isn't original research, it's notability. If an article in Science by the authors who performed experiments is a primary source, and the topic isn't mentioned in some secondary source, it isn't notable, even though in reality the topic of every single article in any 21st century copy of Science is more notable than much of what appears in Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Brief digression: I wonder if the following articles are WP:Notable? 101st meridian west, 102nd meridian west, 103rd meridian west, etc. etc. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is very perplexing. We have a policy, but there is no consensus on what it means. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your point. In what way is that different from any other Wikipedia policy? Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

:) LOL Tim Vickers (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Weighing in

The way to solve problems about anything on Wikipedia is to use sources. In this case, we need sources that tell us what primary, secondary and tertiary sources are in the scientific literature. I'm just going to list a large number of links to reputable websites without saying what each one is, in the hope that the volume of evidence will demonstrate that a primary source in science is a journal article written by the experimenters that reports on the results of an experiment, a secondary source is a review article or possibly a meta-analysis, and a tertiary source is something like a textbook, an encyclopedia, or a reporting in the popular press. I'm going to do this blind; I have no idea what the sources will say. Also, I haven't looked in a while, but I'll bet that Wikipedia's own articles on sources, when they mention the meaning of the term in the scientific literature, will approximate what I have said above. I'll be back in a few with the links. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Here they are: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

What say you? AnteaterZot (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There is enough variety in source typing definitions that for everything but the extremes you can find a reliably sourced definition to suit whatever stance you want to take. Meta-analysis and review level literature is usually considered a tertiary source (like textbooks and encyclopedias) under most definitions. Literature documenting original research is commonly referred to as primary sources within the scientific fields. However, the usage and meaning is a bit different than how the source categories are used in Wikipedia. In the Wikipedia sense of the terms, peer-reviewed articles are certainly treated as secondary sources (used for analysis, to establish notability, etc). Vassyana (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources that say that about the scientific literature? AnteaterZot (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if any of the links or definitions on this page will help or not, WP:No original research/Sandbox/Various examples. First, let me say that if you find any specific definitions of 'source-types' as they apply to the science field, please add them to that page, for the benefit of others later on.

Next, let me briefly try to recap my earlier statements in regards to this current 'conflict resolution case' between you and TimVickers. This dispute seems solely about whether or not an article is 'notable' enough for some programmatic 'bot to tag articles semi-accurately. So, in a small way this is about what is a primary source vs. a secondary source, but mainly this is about notability. So, quoting the nutshell from the notabilty page, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". So, in this particular case, if the citation is made to the NIH website hosting the article, then NIH is clearly a secondary source, they did not conduct the research. Next, NIH is definately considered a reliable source within their area of expertise. Since they are more-or-less 'hosting' the article, somebody there at NIH has already made the decision that within their field (health), the article is notable enough to make available to others, as it is either pertinent to other ongoing work, ties in with previous work, or is one of the first in a new series of work. Either way, it is notable to them (and they probably know about this field than most Wikipedians). Also, though I don't know the sepcifics of how NIH does it, in the government agency I work in, in order for an 'outside' publication to be on one of our servers for serving to the public, some sort of group of subject matter experts has to have given the okay after they reviewed it. So, in accordance with WP:AGF, I would be sorely tempted to say the same process is in use there. They have so much work, so few people, and such limited dollars to spend each year, they made the decision that the subject (article) is accurate enough by their standards to make available, as it offers additional information to something (probably some specific field) that they are studying or working on. So, it comes through a reliable secondary source, which had it's own peer-review process to decide if it was accurate and pertinent to their work.

As a government worker myself in another science agency, I know how long it takes for the publication of scientific studies in-house (2-3 years just for the peer-reviews and editorial oversights) after the author(s) decide the publication is ready. NIH is probably the same way, so their 'offering' of the article is more than likely their way of making information they feel is notable and pertinent until such time as they can make their own 'publication' available. I would suggest (without knowing what your 'bot does or is planned to do) that if it finds articles with less than two references, it simply tags the artilce with the {{expert-subject}} tag. wbfergus ^Talk 11:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand and respect that there's a tension between WP:PSTS and WP:NOR on the one hand, and the request made by some users for expert help in certain articles, for instance by placing the {{Template:Expert-subject}} tag. To this I can only say that when a user becomes involved in a WP article and says "hey, I'm an expert on this topic", if that user is indeed an expert, that user should be able to much more readily point the way to the reliable secondary and/or tertiary sources on that topic, rather than using WP as an opportunity to publish original research. Use of primary sources about particular theories, concepts, literary styles, technical approaches, etc., should be limited to verbatim representations attributed to given primary sources in such a way that any generally educated person can double check the primary source and conclude that it says what the WP article says it says. Analysis, synthesis, comparison, explanation or integration vis-a-vis other theories, concepts, literary styles, technical approaches, etc., should use secondary sources, ideally citing representative secondary sources. Any expert in a given topic area who is willing to participate in helping the project by improving such an article should be able to accomplish this. Upon being presented with this policy, it's only a problem if the expert's goal is to publish original research in Wikipedia. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In mathematics at least, the place that commentary on "analysis, synthesis, comparison, explanation or integration vis-a-vis other theories, concepts" is often found is in peer-reviewed journal articles. That's one reason such articles are treated as secondary sources on WP. Original research in this context would be the promotion of theores that have not appeared in peer reviewed papers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who treats them as necessarily secondary sources, but I'll immediately point to Watson and Crick's article in Nature about DNA. Is that a primary source? You bet it is. Watson and Crick's 1953 article in Nature is a primary source for the concept that DNA molecules have the form of a double helix. And there are an immensely large number of additional examples where the particular principle under discussion was first introduced in a peer-reviewed journal (I will leave aside for the moment the residual debate about the extent of peer review in Watson and Crick's case). Moreover, to the extent that a peer-reviewed article is documenting follow-up on a concept, theory, topic, or particular type of analysis, but the new synthesis or analysis is sufficiently original to be given a name of its own, it too is a primary source for that particular brand of approach to the already existing topic. Why is it a primary source in such a case? Because it's the original source of the concept, type of analysis, or particular variation that was given a particular name for that concept, type of analysis or variation. An example might be modern evolutionary synthesis, which has a couple of primary sources for the concept itself, despite that it was built upon earlier primary sources such as Darwin's Origin of Species. And, to follow this one example a bit further, Origin of Species is not the primary source for every little thing within its covers either, but it is a primary source for the theory of evolution by natural selection. And each new variation that is significant enough to be given a name has at least one primary source, which quite commonly is first published in a peer-reviewed journal. As is stated in the policy page under WP:PSTS it depends upon what is being talked about in the WP article. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(←) 'm afraid you're confusing the "first appearance" of a scientific theory with the primary/secondary source distinction. It is perfectly possible for a secondary source to introduce a theory, and indeed this is the way that most theories are going to be introduced. The point of the primary source distinction in historical analysis is to separate "eyewitness testimony" from "distanced analysis". In scientific papers. the data collected corresponds to the eyewitness testimony, but the introduction of abstract theories does not. This is one reason the entire distinction is less useful for scientific papers than for historical analysis.

Nevertheless, this is not really a significant issue. The actual problem I think you are trying to address is undue weight, not original research. By plain language, a theory that has appeared in a peer reviewed journal cannot be called 'original research' if restated on Wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true that according to current WP policy the use of material from a peer-reviewed journal article in a simple restatement of relevant passages from such a source is not original research. I must disagree, though, that the idea that all peer-reviewed journal articles are secondary sources is not a significant issue, because it's been one of the argumentae ad absurdum used in opposition to PSTS itself. While documented data sets are primary sources, so too the first publication of a theory that is given a name of its own is always to be considered a primary source, because it's the original published source of the particular theory. If one wants to add to that the fact that lab notes and other documentation and such are also primary sources, fine. But the notion that for purposes of Wikipedia editing the first published source is not a primary source? I surely dunno about this interpretation. The original published source of anything is inherently a primary source. We're not historiographers, not data miners, and not professional analysts, but rather we're editors of a general encyclopedia that has a proscription against original research. Thus the idea of relegating the concept of "primary" to the backwaters of archived lab notes, fossils in caves, and the like, is contrary to the spirit of WP:PSTS, in my estimation. I still would like to know where all these editors have "generally accepted this idea of what a primary source is in such a way as to automatically regard peer-reviewed journal articles as secondary sources. I think it's putting the cart before the horse-- the horse here is "what is the particular thing being talked about", not what forum the source was published in. If the thing being talked about-- the particular topic-- is a theory, its first published appearance(s) is or are the primary-source material. That's why, beyond a set of representative examples given on the policy page, the decisions are made locally in the context of particular articles, not from WP:Policy Central. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC) ... :(My offhand sense is that the idea that peer-reviewed journal articles are secondary sources may involve some degree of confusion with WP:V#Reliable sources and WP:Reliable sources, at least one of which gives peer-reviewed journals as an example of a reliable source.) ... Kenosis (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that a scientific review article is always a secondary source. An "original" article is partly secondary source (as much it summarizes previous research in Introduction and Discussion), and partly a primary source. But I would like to emphasize that annotations and other materials published in established biological databases, such as Pfam or UniProt, should be considered as reliable secondary sources according to the existing WP criteria. There is fact checking policy there, and all records have proofs as links to published journal articles.Biophys (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In my mind there's absolutely no question about it. Review articles are inherently secondary, unless the author is using it as an opportunity to inject a particular new synthesis by the author, in which case they're primary only w.r.t. the particular new synthesis of the already-published material they're reviewing. In general, they're inherently secondary, i.e., designed to give those conversant in the particular area of research an overview of recent developments in that area of research. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

>> The original published source of anything is inherently a primary source.

By that definition, the 10 commandments are a primary source, and the old testament a secondary one. Oh, wait! The old testament is reiterated in the bible, so the bible must be a "tertiary" source. Charming. ;)

>>If the thing being talked about-- the particular topic-- is a theory, it's first published appearance(s) is or are the primary-source material.

Uh, yes, and? Does that somehow disqualify it as a "source"? If so, why? And if not, why? And in either case, how is this relevant to whether someone can screw up the representation of it on WP?

>> we're editors of a general encyclopedia that has a proscription against original research

This is perhaps the reason why you're so confused. WP doesn't have "a proscription against original research." WP has a proscription against original research by editors themselves.

-- Fullstop (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fullstop, based upon recent talk-page comments it seems to me you're enough of a skilled logician to know full well that just because "if A, then B", it's not ncecessarily the case that "if not-A, then not-B". Translated: "The first published source is always a primary source. But not being the first published source doesn't necessarily mean that it is not to be considered a primary source." As many have been trying to say here, including myself, it depends on the topic. If the topic is focused on historical variations on the commandments and how they were distilled to ten in the Torah and Old Testament, then the range of what's considered primary-source material will depend on what the editors discussing and editing the topic see as the original sources. If the thing being talked about is variations in the scriptural version of the ten commandments, the editors will need to cite any particular scriptural version of the ten as a primary source, and rely on secondary-source commentary from reliable sources for further analysis and commentary.

But, to be somewhat direct, it appears increasingly apparent to me that part of the objective of some recent commentators about this policy is to go as far as possible to permit original research. To the extent that this may be the case, it seems to me that removing WP:PSTS immediately gets one a large part of the way towards this objective. For my own part, I vehemently oppose such a change in existing policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC) ... Anyway, for now, gotta go. Take care, 'tll another time. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I figured that you'd correctly point out that "not being the first published source doesn't necessarily mean that it is not to be considered a primary source." But I wanted you to say it. ;)

If there are really commentators here who wish "to permit original research," I must have missed them. All I've seen is brouhaha over PSTS. And that can't be what you're referring to since a distinction between primary and secondary contributes nothing to an understanding/explanation/prevention of original research. Removal of PSTS would get them nothing.

Sticking to the sources is sticking to the sources. Even if the shoddy PSTS were to vanish, the rest of NOR prohibits original research. And it does even without the ifs, buts, & perhapses of PSTS.

Because "the original published source of anything is inherently a primary source," original research makes an article itself a primary source, and an encyclopedia cannot be permitted to itself become a primary source. This is the only relationship and purpose that a definition of "primary sources" has to "no original research."

-- Fullstop (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And that was the original use of "primary sources" at NOR, per this diff. Since then, the concept of PSTS has grown to cover all sorts of things well beyond the original intent. In my opinion, it has been co-opted for purposes other than preventing original research. Whether these purposes are good and pure are not of concern here, we should limit the NOR policy to defining OR as clearly as possible in order to make it easily understandable. The PSTS section just makes OR clear as mud, and causes new arguments over what is primary vs. secondary, rather than what is OR vs. NOR. Dhaluza (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(R to Kenosis). You said, "so too the first publication of a theory that is given a name of its own is always to be considered a primary source, ..." By that logic, a contemporary book about the French revolution that advances a new theory about the revolution is a primary source, which contradicts even the definition of primary/secondary source used in historical scholarship. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that depends on whether the theory causes a paradigm shift in the discipline or whether it is just another rejected revisionist theory. In general I would not consider a "normal" paper that develops a new facet within a paradigm a primary source, but a seminal paper that develops a theory and sets a discipline off on a whole new tangent probably is a primary source. Do not ask me to judge what such a paper is in disciplines I know little about, and of course if you think that Thomas Kuhn and the secondary sources he engendered are not correct then that is a whole different debate:-) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

But once again, doesn't this show that the delineation between primary and secondary sources is complex, if not convoluted? And why is it really necessary? Can't we formulate a more specific definition of what constitutes original research, without the diversion of source typing? Dhaluza (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Resp. to Philip. Any paper or (more likely) book that analyzes first-person accounts of the French revolution to present an interpretation of those events would be a secondary source about the revolution. It would not matter whether the book presented a completely new theory or merely extended a previous theory. In other words, the novelty of the interpretation does not make a primary source out of any contemporary book about the French revolution. Similarly, a math article that analyzes an existing mathematical concept to draw new conclusions is a secondary source about that mathematical concept. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Might I just suggest something - the difference between a primary source and a secondary source is relative. Relative to the subject the source covers and sometimes relative to the field it is published in. For example if I have an essay published about the latest production of Hedda Gabbler in a Theatre studies journal then there would be 2 ways to use it as a source. First the essay published in the journal is the primary source for my views, but it is a secondary source for information about the production (the production itself being the primary source for that). So if you were writing an article about Hedda Gabbler you could use that article as a secondary source and say: "X is Cailil's interpretation of the meaning of that stage direction" but if you were writing an article about me or my theories the article would be a primary source and could only be used descriptively.

What makes things difficult is the apparent difference between Hard and Soft science publications. But again the source type will be relative to the subject of the article. If I came up with a new theory of relativity and it was published in a physics journal, the journal article would be a primary source for an article about this new theory. But if that article discussed Einstein (in a way that is not fringe) then it could be used as a secondary source on Einstein's page.

Perhaps PSTS is not eloquent prose but it does help people see that "sources closest to the subject" should only be used for description not interpretation--Cailil ^talk 03:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In reply to CBM yes and no, as Cailil points out it as depends on the focus of the Wikipedia article. If it is about the French revolution then it is as you say secondary source. But if the article is about the theory and I can think of one example Historical revisionism, and a possible Genocides in history, where such a book might be a primary source (See Historical revisionism#French attacking formations in the Napoleonic wars and Genocides in history#France). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Even in the article about genocide,this would be a secondary source, since it analyzes primary sources to make the interpretive claim that a genocide occurred. If the book were used as an example in the article about historical revisionism, there it would be a primary source. But for an article on the French revolution or genocide, it would be a secondary source. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So far, I am unrefuted

So far, nobody here has come forth with a single reputable source that defines primary and secondary sources in the scientific literature any different that I did. I'll paste my sources again, below, with some annotation. Many of these are university library's pages.

1. University of Hawaii "How does Biological literature evolve over time?"
2. William Madison Randall Library "Identifying Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources"
3. Cal State Northridge "Types of Resources"
4. University of Minnesota Bio-Medical Library "Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources in the Health Sciences"
5. Diablo Valley College "Identifying Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources"
6. Florida Institute of Technology "Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources"
7. Yale University "Lesson 3: Recognizing Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources"
8. OhioLINK, is a consortium of 86 Ohio college and university libraries, and the State Library of Ohio "Cycle of Scientific Literature"
9. University of California Santa Barbara "Distinguishing Between Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources"
10. eric.ed.gov Education Resources Information Center "Chemical Literature Exercises and Resources"
11. And finally, a book: Writing Guidelines for Postgraduate Science Students By John Hampton.

• I'll ask again: Does anybody have any sources about what constitutes primary and secondary literature in science to refute the sources I give above? All my sources say that in the scientific literature, a report on an experiment by the experimenters is primary, and a review article is secondary. Those of you in the humanitites, please understand that science is different. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read my reply to you again. I perfectly acknowledge how science typically defines their sources. Wikipedia policy deals with all fields and therefore does not conform to one particular subject's treatment, but rather deals with the source distinctions in a way appropriate for Wikipedia. We are not publishing scientific literature here, we are creating a general-use encyclopedia. Different purposes require different standards. The footnote at the beginning of the PSTS section deals with this matter (Wikipedia:No original research# note-0) and the text explicitly states that the definitions are drawn for our own purposes here ("For the purposes of Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are broadly defined as follows:"). Vassyana (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Even sticking to the definition at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, journal articles (those that are not reviews) count as primar:y since "are very close to the origin of a particular topic." Scientists, like everybody else, put the best possible face on their work, and that's why it is necessary to have a secondary source (a review article) to make sure the topic is as important as they say it is. AnteaterZot (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Vassyana you put that note in there. You are arguing in bad faith. AnteaterZot (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardly in bad faith at all. I did not insert the lede paragraph statement into policy. The caveat footnote was simply an observation based on months and months of talk page discussion. Its insertion was discussed and was originally part of the main text. Due to some objections over the bloat of the text, it was moved to a footnote. The other footnote was added to a proposal because other editors expressed a need for footnotes with a broader definition that better encompasses the breadth of topics on Wikipedia. I simply added two reasonable footnotes expressing the broader intent of the policy per the feedback of others. You make it sound as though I put that material into policy of my own accord, when those changes were made based on the feedback of others after building a consensus. Vassyana (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If you say so. AnteaterZot (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The "close to the origin" language is not particularly precise. Primary sources report data; secondary sources interpret data to make analytic and synthetic arguments. You may be thinking mostly of experimental sciences, where a paper consists mainly of data with a small amount of analysis. Papers like that should indeed be treated as primary sources. On the other hand, in other areas such as computer science and mathematics, most papers have no experimental data, and consist entirely of analytic and synthetic arguments. Such papers, by their nature, are secondary sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you for your well-reasoned response. This debate is occuring here over a project to make 10,000 stubs for genes, using a lot of scientific papers that consist of little more than reporting of data; "We found a gene, it has sequence ATGGC..., it makes a protein that looks like a protein in another species based on a computer program that looks for these things." I've been suggesting to the folks at User talk:ProteinBoxBot that they might run into trouble with notability without review articles. AnteaterZot (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This sounds more like an issue resting on N's requirement for multiple reliable sources, with the intent of requiring enough sources to produce an encyclopedic article (in accordance with WP:NOT, from which N originally derives). Does that make sense? Vassyana (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess. The editor who brought this debate here probably should have taken to to the notability talk page, do you agree? AnteaterZot (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a question of notability, I agree. It is complicated by the question of how far our mission to be encyclopedic extends. For example, some claim that all towns should have articles regardless of the existence of reliable sources about them. The catchphrase used for that is "inherent notability", even though it isn't about notability so much as it is about the mission of the project. So it will require some discussion to determine which genes should have articles. WP:N or (preferably) the village pump are good locations for that discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Carl that N's talk page and the policy village pump are the best places to address the matter. Vassyana (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that those two venues would be the best place. However, as I remember it, the discussion was brought here primarily because this policy is where the 'source type' distinction was referenced from Notability. Since this policy, which should be strictly about No Original Research took it upon itself to create terms and definitions not directly related to No Original Research, another policy was linked here for these definitions/terms, hence this policy's discussions were yet again sidetracked. wbfergus ^Talk 14:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is why appending PSTS as a rider to this policy is a bad idea. It really has nothing to do with original research, because if there is a published primary or secondary source for material, it is not original. Dhaluza (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary of PSTS issues

The discussion on the policy issues have become somewhat fragmented with the RfC and RfA comments and discussion going on now. I saw something that Fullstop posted at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/COGDEN. He summarized the issues with the PSTS section as follows:

a) the relevance of a distinction between "primary" and "secondary" sources with respect to "original research";

b) the applicability of the terms "primary" and "secondary", to include the arbitrariness of such definitions, and the problems that such definitions cause;

c) the pitiful prose in that section.

I believe this is a very succinct and accurate summary of the questions that have been raised on this talk page that still remain unaddressed, and should be discussed further here. I also think these items are sufficient justification for applying the dispute tag to the PSTS section to flag the issues and encourage further discussion to reach a true consensus. Dhaluza ([[User talk: Dhaluza|talk]]) 14:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So since there are no cogent arguments disputing this summary, can we reapply the {{Disputedtag}} tag to the PSTS section now? Dhaluza (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Is research ever really defined?

It doesn't seem to be. This may be an important point because research means different things for people of differing backgrounds. In the sciences it's labwork and playing with data but in the humanities research often consists of reading secondary sources and abstracting them, something which is not unlike what's done in preparing a wikipedia article. It seems like in some cases this results in people talking past each other because they do not have a common conception of what they mean by research. Obviously, it's the bit about new synthesis of information that's important here but this is confusing because research does not typically involve synthesizing information at all. The synthesis is done when you're writing up the results of the research. The process of researching a subject for wikipedia and researching a subject for academic writing is pretty much the same. The difference is in the writing.

Isn't all research original btw? Even if you're reading someone else's notes, you're still doing your own research when you read them. --69.17.124.2 (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi new user (judging by your sole use of an IP address). It's really a long convoluted process here on Wikipedia, sort of like trying to track just one string through the largest ball of string in the world, without unravelling the ball. Basically this policy states (or should state) that any thoughts, interpretations, synthesis, etc. must be published in a verifiable and reliable source first. Otherwise, if you can't cite a source that has those conclusions or other statements, it would give every appearance of being original thought (or research) by you, the editor. wbfergus ^Talk 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The "research" portion of "No original research" (NOR) is a defined term, since WP can't actually prevent you from doing your own research. We simply require that you don't source the research you contribute here to yourself, but instead provide outside published reliable sources. That is where NOR should stop, but there is an activist position that NOR goes beyond using unpublished original sourcing, and should actually cover the use of material from published sources. That is one of the root issues of the current dispute here, and would make the "original" portion of NOR also a defined term. Dhaluza (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dhaluza, the policy's name "original research" is a bit misleading because it covers original thought, synthesis & argument as much as it does research. What this policy prohibits is a) novel interpretation of sources (including synthesis and re-readings) and b) new or "original" research which has not been published a reliable third party source. The former is what I understand you're calling the "activist position." As far as I'm concerned the prohibition on novel synthesis is absolutely necessary, new/personal interpretations of sources are by definition not the mainstream understanding of them, and recording mainstream understanding is what an encyclopedia does.

To answer the IP user no not all research is original research - neutrally summarizing the findings recorded in reliable sources is documentation of somebody else's research hence not original. Other than that I think wbfergus has addressed your points--Cailil ^talk 02:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, the position that Dhaluza referred to is going beyond the a/b you correctly described.

For that position, original research is not just what has not been previously published. For them, original research is governed by some special ingredient only known to the exalted. This special and magical ingredient, so the rationale of proponents of the PSTS section, gives primary sources (and only primary sources) a particular feature that sources in general don't have. Wait! Not only just primary sources, no, primary sources as covered by an arbitrarily chosen definition thereof.

Whatever this special ingredient is, it somehow makes it "necessary" to treat "primary" sources as distinct from sources. Consequently, its not just sufficient to say that no interpretations can be made from sources. Additionally we must also have a long winded discussion of primary sources too, and while we're at it, toss in a discussion of secondary and tertiary sources for good measure.

Perhaps all very "useful" to the aforementioned exalted. But normal drones, accustomed as we are to the strop of Occam's razor, we who have not been blessed with the royal jelly of queen-bee revelation, we can't understand it.

So, as you 'c', its not just the "stick to the sources" a/b definitions you and I and the whole wide world of non-'l33t drones knows about. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "research" part is a defined term that is used collectively to cover thought, synthesis & argument as you say. And I agree that new interpretations are not permitted, but only because they are previously unpublished and therefore original to the editor as far as WP is concerned. So the original part of original research should retain its plain language meaning. The activist position I am referring to is defining the original part to cover things that have been previously published, but in one type of source or another. Dhaluza (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

PST in religion articles

I've been doing a fair bit of editing in religion articles. Much of what I've read so far focuses on the problems of sourcing scientific and historical articles. Religion articles have special concerns, especially as regards primary and secondary sources. I'd be curious about how we might word things to take these issues into account.

• primary source: some would consider the sacred literature of a tradition the "primary source". However, these texts often have a rich interpretative tradition and sometimes significant disputes over the "real text", or even whether or not there is a "real text". Furthermore phrases that seem to have "obvious" meaning in the eyes of one reader community have an entirely different "obvious" reading in the eyes of another. A good example might be passages of the bible that Christianity has generally read as "obvious" allusions to Jesus of Nazareth and Jews have read quite differently.

• secondary sources: in liturature an article or essay that analyzes or interprets one passage in a book or connects two or more passage to describe a theme within the book would be considered a secondary source. Within a religious tradition, there are many, many such sources. However, these interpretative sources over time become the subject of yet further interpretation and integrative work. This happens internal to the tradition and, in the last 200 hundred years, it has also happened within academia. To further complicate the issue, liberal streams of both Judaism and Christianity reincorporate the academic tradition building upon it yet another layer of interpretation upon interpretation. Example:
  • bible (primary source)
  • midrash - interpretive material from the talmudic period (approx 200-700CE)
  • rashi - medieval commentator using midrash to read the bible. secondary source? - most Jews would say yes. Functionally Rashi is used this way and many religious readers are not always aware of his relience on midrash. Others view him this way because they feel that midrash isn't really interpretation - it is filling in the blanks and is as much God's word as what was written in the text itself. Still others (mostly academic) observe that rashi used midrash but artfully selected material to reflect his own interpretative beliefs. Tertiery source? - many non-orthodox and academics would say yes to this as well)
  • modern academia - many studies and disputes about what rashi really means (secondary source on rashi? tertiery source on bible?)
  • reform/conservative Judaism bible commentaries - interpretation of a biblical passage using rashi seen through the eyes of one or more academic sources. Secondary source? arguably since this is a direct commentary on the bible passage. Teriery soruce? arguably because the interpretation generally reflects a survey of all prior commentary and academic analysis and reads medieval commentators such as rashi through the lens of integrative and analytical academic studies of the same.

So what here is a secondary or teriery source? Sorry to muddy the waters further, but I'd like to see the religion articles improved and a clear policy on sourcing them would help immensely. Egfrank (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My own sense here is that primary sources can be used to illustrate a point made by an integrative or analytic source but that any claim that is made directly from a primary religious text source is OR. In some cases even a claim based on an integrative source may also be OR, if there is a history of disputes about how to interpret that integrative source. Egfrank (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would contend that Rashi is an original source, insofar as he is presenting his original insights into the Midrash and the Bible. I would even contend that Onkulus (the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew biblical text) is an original source whenever its translation elucidates the meaning of a passage. In other words, religious dialectic is the mapping of a text to a moral or religious problem, and any effort to do that is original. Even if you are merely repeating what some previous interpreter has said, you are in some way adding your own understanding through language and context.

Writing about religion boldly clarifies the central paradox of this whole discussion, which is - there cannot be encyclopedic writing which is not original. This is the Wittgenstein paradox: an encyclopedia article is creating a map of existing knowledge. But such a map necessarily requires a key - a way to map the map back to the original subject. And that key is always original.

Which is why I believe that this whole discussion is doomed to failure. In practice, we all know what we want not to be in the encyclopedia: people publishing their own experiments of mice running around in mazes, or people writing articles proving that they are the latest true prophet. Our efforts to reduce that intuitive understanding to a set of formal definitions is bound, for strictly logical reasons, to fail. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would Rashi is a primary source, as a historical source of religious writings. To make Judeo-Christian parallels, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the Hadith are also primary sources. To make respective parallels with more distance of time, the Church Fathers and historical commentaries on ijma are also primary sources. These writings are not only primary sources of the historical interpretation of Judeo-Christian religions, but indeed primary sources regarding the religions themselves. This is especially true since the writings mentioned are central material in the modern orthodoxy of those faiths. Vassyana (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources: bias, fairness, and objectivity

Vassyana recently made an excellent addition to the secondary source section:[34]

Secondary sources are usually preferable because they generally provide analysis and a broader context for the subject, and usually offer a more independent view. However, they can be biased by the views of their author(s) and/or publisher, so caution is required to preserve the neutral point of view. Care should also be taken to avoid undue weight and ensure the information cited is used in context.

SlimVirgin removed Vassyana's addition without any rationale.[35] In response to this removal of important, relevant (and easy to source) material, I added the following:[36]

Secondary sources on Wikipedia should have a reputation for fair and objective reporting, as they can be biased by the views of their author(s) and/or publisher. Caution should be taken to preserve the neutral point of view , avoid undue weight and ensure the information cited is used in context.

SlimVirgin responded to my addition/modification of Vassyana's original edit by reverting to her version which removes the warning about secondary source bias. Her reason in the edit summary stated: "rv that isn't true -- secondary sources do not need a reputation for unbiased reporting; we have to use biased secondary sources all the time per NPOV)"

Read that again, please: we have to use biased secondary sources all the time per NPOV. This is a very strange assertion. There is nothing in the NPOV policy that is at odds with using fair and objective secondary sources. The nutshell states that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias." This is very clear. One is not required to use "unfair and subjective" secondary sources to represent a view -- it never needs to be done at any time. If a particular POV cannot be found in a reliable, secondary source that is considered fair and objective, then it probably does not meet notability guidelines, nor is it a "significant view" per NPOV. However, there are always exceptions: historical articles, articles about an organization, or important niche topics (such as scientific subdisciplines) may make use of primary sources carefully to represent a POV where there is a dearth of secondary sources, but in such cases, we should always strive to find fair and objective secondary sources whenever possible and question why they are lacking.

Wikipedia needs to maintain the highest ethical standards in sourcing while at the same time paying attention to NPOV. I fail to see how SlimVirgin's reversion and subsequent rationale is supported, and I find the removal of secondary source bias issues from this policy and the related ethical principles very troubling. Wikipedians must be ethical researchers, and we must start by acknowledging the deficiencies of secondary sources. Editors should be encouraged to evaluate all sources for fairness and objectivity, but on Wikipedia the concern is secondary sources; author, publisher, and editorial bias in primary and tertiary sources on Wikipedia is almost unknown. —Viriditas | Talk 08:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that especially biased sources are problematic, I believe the change as worded will lead to wide swaths of perfectly legitimate sources being excluded. For example, it most cases one can hardly say that a Jesuit scholar writing about Catholic theology is "unbiased" or "objective", but certainly in most cases that would be a perfectly reliable and desirable secondary reference to use in describing Catholic theology. Does that concern make sense? Vassyana (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, there is a vocal group of people who consider all mainstream science 'biased' because they view the scientific establishment negatively. So it's no use to try to exclude biased sources, since then this minority will try to use that language to exclude valid mainstream sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I can clearly see both side arguments in this instance. But, the actions without honest and active discussion by the parties involved speak more volumes. If you are going to add, edit, or revert, please have an active and honest discussion first. Otherwise your actions appear as knee-jerk reversion and smacks of ownership. This is a policy for all of Wikipedia, not just a select few to interpret and implement as they choose. wbfergus ^Talk 13:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, thanks for your reply. We agree about mentioning bias in secondary sources. Previously you wrote that SS "...can be biased by the views of their author(s) and/or publisher, so caution is required to preserve the neutral point of view." When this was removed, I added that SS "... should have a reputation for fair and objective reporting, as they can be biased by the views of their author(s) and/or publisher."

I'm not sure if you (or anyone else) saw what I did, but I encapsulated source evaluation and WP:RS into NOR. You see, Vassyana, not only are these three interconnected, but one should be able to see how every policy and guideline works together without having to read a separate page on each one. Think of it as summary style. That is to say, when the average Wikipedian visits a policy page, they should be able to come away with how that policy works - not only in and of itself - but in relation to each corresponding policy and guideline, all without having to visit multiple pages. This does not mean that legitimate sources will be excluded; it means that editors should be reminded to evaluate sources, and should also be aware of reliability issues. And, they get three for the price of one.

Now, as for your hypothetical example, you may find this hard to believe, but I've actually had to deal with a very similar situation. A group of editors (including myself) were writing about a science fiction film that made subtle allusions to Christian themes. A dispute arose between two editors over whether it was acceptable to use a religious source to criticize the film and at the same time discuss the religious themes. Although I wasn't a party to that dispute, the sources were removed. I remember glancing at them and seeing right away that they didn't pass a quick evaluation: the source did not appear to have a reputation for fair and objective reporting. As luck would have it, I was able to fill a void in the article by finding a similar piece of criticism by a Jesuit film critic who had a history of objective film criticism, and whose work was published by an academic religious journal with a reputation for fairness. So, it is possible to find reliable, fair, and objective secondary sources, but it requires the researcher to be vigilant, which is exactly the type of editor that we want. I believe I have met your concerns somewhat, although that will of course be for you to judge. But please, consider what others are saying. Turabian's 7th edition of A Manual for Writers (2007) says the following:

Beware, however, of online encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia, that rely on anonymous contributions rather than on carefully edited entries written by established researchers. Wikipedia has proved to be relatively accurate in the sciences, but overall it is uneven and sometimes wrong. Never cite it as an authoritative source.

We want to alert our contributors, registered or anonymous, about the hazards of secondary sources, particularly because Wikipedia relies on them more in non-science topics than on primary sources used in science. —Viriditas | Talk 15:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of a situation where I would want to use an unfair or biased, source, but I can certainly think of a case where I would like to use one that's wrong. People keep sticking the statement that "AD does not mean After Death" into the Anno Domini article. I don't know if this is just vandalism, or if there are lots of people out there that think AD acutally stands for After Death. But in the absence of a good source that either wrongly claims AD acutally stands for After Death, or a good source that says this is a widespread misconception, I don't think we can say anything about it in the article.

Now, if I want a secondary source that's wrong, it isn't to hard to imagine that some other editor wants a secondary source that's biased, just to show that people exist who hold the biased position. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

But I can use a primary source to do just that, and in many cases, that primary source is supported by a fair, objective secondary source saying the same thing. There really isn't a good reason to use biased secondary sources at any time, although I've been told that "people do it all the time". That must make it ok, then...for eight million readers of Turabian to be told to stay as far away from Wikipedia as possible. If people want to keep supporting policies that are driving this site into the ground, that's their choice. —Viriditas | Talk 15:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You can only use sources you can find. Your position is that the existence of a biased point of view must not be mentioned in an article, unless a fair and unbiased source can be found that says the point of view exists, no matter how many biased secondary sources exist that put forward the point of view. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said a biased point of view must not be mentioned. I said: "Secondary sources on Wikipedia should have a reputation for fair and objective reporting". Huge difference. And biased POVs are often covered by reliable secondary sources that are considered fair and objective. What you're really saying is, what happens when you can't find a source that meets this requirement? This is already covered by WP:RS and the procedure for evaluating sources. I'm just putting it into words. —Viriditas | Talk 15:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing comment

Somehow an inadvertant edit was made which wound up duplicating most of the content on this page, except for (I think) the last 5 edits by Smalljim and AnteaterZot. So try and fix this, I removed the first (original) set of the discussions, as I think the subsequent edits were added to the end, which would be in the duplicated section. I will notify those two users what I did and why, asking them check if I did this correctly, and to readd their comments if not. Any other problems anybody notices, please feel free to correct. wbfergus ^Talk 12:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd just noticed and was about to delete, but you pipped me to it!  —SMALLJIM  12:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(Using my deepest Arnie voice) No problemo. wbfergus ^Talk 12:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to secondary sources

A lot of undiscussed changes were implemented into the recent replacement of the secondary sources paragraph, along with some edit-warring back and forth over it. A user has a conduct RfC active, an ArbCom case was filed and this page has been protected for weeks at a time. These symptoms arose exactly because of undiscussed changes and reverts. At this point, it's clearly and plainly disruptive behavior. Please discuss any significant changes before making them. The discussion for that text is at the obviously named WT:NOR#Secondary sources. Reviewing some of the changes:

• [37] Ignores the reasoning behind the changes clearly linked in the discussion. Ignores the footnote which states that secondary references are "based upon primary sources and the work of other authors" [emphasis added].
• [38] A significant alteration of the text, completely without discussion.
• [39] Within the spirit of the proposal, though the introductory phrase is a significant clarification/specific point and should be discussed first. Posted for discussion by the editor at WT:NOR#Secondary sources: bias, fairness, and objectivity.

If someone wants to comment on an active discussion, they are perfectly welcome to do so. People waiting until after a change is implemented (based on talk page discussion) to impose their "discussion" through editing is simply intolerable and disruptive. If a change occurs after discussion and you disagree, please voice your opinions on the talk page like everyone else. Vassyana (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally this episode is a point in favour of my suggestion of an "under discussion" tag for policy pages.[40]  —SMALLJIM  12:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside of a single comment (which was addressed), those significantly altering and/or reverting the secondary sources section have not joined the discussion. As such, I am restoring the proposed draft since it lacks significant and/or substantiated opposition. Vassyana (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A reminder to all

As we continue to debate the wording of the PSTS section, there is one thing that I think needs to be remembered: The purpose of the secton is not intended to say that primary sources can never be used in Wikipedia! Even the current language makes it clear that primary sources can be used.... However, they need to be used with great caution, because it is very easy to misuse them in ways that introduce ORIGINAL RESEARCH into our articles. This to me is the key concept of the section, and is much more important than the exact definition of "primary" and "secondary". Remember, the whole point of the section is to prevent ORIGINAL RESEARCH... it is not to prevent reference to primary sources. The question we should be focusing on is not whether we define primary and secondary accurately... it should be whether the current language is an effeciant statement of this caution... in other words, does the current language properly caution editors about misusing primary sources in a way that introduces ORIGINAL RESEARCH? If so, then the definitions become a secondary issue (it does not matter if the source is primary or secondary if you have not introduced OR in referring to the source) ... if the current language is not an effective caution, then we need to re-write the section so it is. If we remember that this is all about NOR, and isn't really about the type of source, we should end up on track. It's that simple. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that any source is subject to misuse. Whether something is "primary" or "secondary" or "tertiary" doesn't really matter to its potential for misuse. Consider a piece of journalism, an op-ed/opinion letter, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, a scientific review article, a textbook, a video taken by a citizen of an incident of police brutality and widely disseminated on the Internet. Each one of these is a source that can be misused by a wikipedia editor -- quoted out of context or misinterpreted -- and any misuse might be considered introducing original research. The statement about misuse ought not to be limited to primary sources. --Lquilter (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(This statement about misuse in the guideline itself appears to be intended to provide an explanation within the guideline help explain of what the "problem" with primary sources is. But it was conceived with a particular idea of primary sources -- perhaps documentary videos -- and then expanded and applied outward. But identifying the "problem" with primary sources has run aground because this group cannot even agree on what the term means, and the more it talks about the issue the more confused everyone is. That suggests to me that PS/SS/TS is not an entirely helpful distinction. --Lquilter (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not really trying to explain the problem... my statement is simply to remind us that any PSTS section needs to be geared towards preventing OR, not at preventing citation to primary sources. I think that, in all our discussion about definitions, we have lost sight of the fact that this is a caution and not a ban of Primary sources. If editors have paid attention to the caution, and not introduced OR into an article... then it does not really matter what type of source they are using. At least not as far as this policy is concerned.

Now... I think that the consesus is that we do need to caution people about misusing primary sources... and that we need to explain what we mean in that caution. Thus, some form of PSTS section is needed. However, I think the current language is so overly detailed that we lose sight of why it is there in the first place... to explain the caution. I simply wanted to remind people to keep that caution in the fore-front of their minds as they bounce ideas on language back and forth. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: I didn't mean that you were trying to explain; I meant that the role of that point, in the guideline, was an explanatory one. Will clarify my own comment above. --Lquilter (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with your points. Kind of along these lines, it should be noted that the policy has had numerous edits the last day or two, going back and forth. The 'edit summaries' also indicate a bit of friction, with one comment saying the discussion was here. That user, Brimba, has made 6 edits to policy out of the last 50 edits. They have also had a total of 3 signed comments on this talk page. That's hardly a discussion by any means, unless everybody agreed with their sentiments, which the comments seem to indicate otherwise. Just an observation about the childish nature of some things going on here, and primarily by Admins, since we 'regular' users can't participate due to page protection (the lock icon is still present). wbfergus ^Talk 17:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not currently have the sysop bit. I believe that the icon is there in error, or that it's semi-protection, as I can edit the policy. Vassyana (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's move protection. (It uses {{pp-move}}.) Vassyana (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the clarification Vassyana. I just saw the lock icon and assumed it was still protected against us 'regular' users. I never knew moving (renaming) this policy was an issue. I thought it was (almost) entirely centered around PSTS. wbfergus ^Talk 17:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Blueboar's basic thrust starting in the opening comment of this talk section. It can be easy to lose perspective while seeking a suitable definition. I trust that with more participants persently involved, many of whom appear to me to have gained an increased understanding of the issues involved in PSTS, the result of the present round of debates will be reasonable and I hope fairly stable. At least, I hope so. FWIW, I just made a minor qualification to the presently used definition here. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the presence of those editing the policy without discussion and contrary to discussion is going to make anything "reasonable" or "fairly stable". I believe the result is quite the opposite. Vassyana (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that we don't agree on the definition of "original research". The definition has been expanded over time to include all sorts of things that deal with the use of published sources, which has nothing to do with original material sourced to editors. Using citations for material that does not actually come from those sources is an original research problem. But if the citations are accurate, but the use of the sources is questionable, that is a reliable source issue, not an original research issue. I think that until we reach agreement on the scope of NOR, there is no way to agree on the definitions of PSTS. Dhaluza (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So we are basically stuck in a stalemate since one 'side' wants the policy to strictly be about NOR and the other 'side' insists defining PSTS within a policy about NOR is an inherent part of NOR, and neither side seems willing to budge an iota on the issue, no matter how many 'discussions' take place. So, the only two alternatives seem to be to completely ignore it and invoke IAR when pressed, or to work on a way to make PSTS clearly understandable to almost every Wikipedian who comes to the policy for clarification. wbfergus ^Talk 17:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the objections to moving PSTS to a separate guideline are based on keeping it attached to a policy, so it has greater weight in discussions. Moving it would allow us to focus on improving the NOR policy to directly address OR problems, without having to take on RS and V issues, which only makes the whole thing too convoluted to deal with effectively. That is the basis of the stalemate--a basic disagreement on the scope of NOR and its overlap with other policies. We have seen too many discussions about what is the legitimate mission objective of NOR diverted to say that PSTS is useful in content disputes and questioning it prevents good editors from confronting bad editors with it. So we can't discuss the basic policy elements without questioning the entire policy under this M.O. Dhaluza (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

For my part, if that is the main sticking point ("keeping it attached to a policy, so it has greater weight in discussions"), I wouldn't have any problem with a new policy that was strictly about PSTS. Wouldn't that accomplish the same thing and still address any of the issues that've brought up? The other policies could simply be adapted to say there was 'interaction' with the new policy as well. I have no idea how difficult is is to create a new policy though, maybe that's a stumbling block in itself. wbfergus ^Talk 18:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a proposal to move the PS/SS/TS material to a separate page, I wholeheartedly agree. That material can then be discussed and defined as needed. My own take is that PS/SS/TS is a helpful model in some situations, but not all. Separating these would immensely help, I believe. (And if we separate and a year or two from now it appears that they are creeping toward one another we can always re-merge.) --Lquilter (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't offered as a proposal, but merely as a statement. We've addressed this several times in the past, but I 'think' maybe the wording then was just moving it into a guideline. If so, maybe this approach would be acceptable. wbfergus ^Talk 18:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Directly adressing Blueboar's last comment, and reflecting subsequent comments by wbfergus/lquilter/dhaluza...

It is not the "PSTS section needs to be geared towards preventing OR." It is WP:NOR that is supposed to be geared to doing so. The PSTS section doesn't do anything to assist WP:NOR in achieving that end.

• To quote the introduction to PSTS: "For the purposes of Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are broadly defined as follows." This is not a section geared towards preventing OR. This is a section in NOR, but about quite something else.
• To quote the conclusion to PSTS: "All sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to (etc etc) original research."
• Besides a token allusion to OR in the tertiary bit (ala "tertiary sources can ... be useful in preventing original research" or something equally non-brilliant), not once until that solitary sentence in the conclusion does PSTS even refer to "original research."
• Whatever it is people think PSTS is doing, a relationship to NOR ain't there. It doesn't even have a reason to be there, because misuse of sources - irrespective of kind - is what NOR is supposed to be prohibiting. Thats what the conclusion also says.

Oh, I've checked SlimVirgin's edits for early October 2006, and understand full well what the psts stuff hoped to accomplish, and I think I can even recognize the thought processes involved (all good) that led to the instruction creep.

But irrespective of how PSTS "happened," the net effect was a) it was inserted into the wrong policy, b) it happened the wrong "way," and c) because it was in the wrong policy it got mangled to the cruft we have now.

A PSTS distinction is fundamentally unable "to be geared towards preventing OR." It doesn't do so now, and there is simply no way to make it do so in the future either.

-- Fullstop (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree wholehearedly with Fullstop above. In response to the idea of moving PS/SS/TS to a separate "policy", I can't imagine how PS/SS/TS can achieve consensus as a policy when editors can't even agree on what the terms mean. I think it should be a guideline, and undergo a separate evaluation and discussion that assesses when it's helpful. But separate it to keep it from mucking up the WP:NOR material. To be honest, the PS/SS/TS reads as a guideline -- it's so detailed & specific. The core policies should be simple and clear to understand, and the murkiness of these distinctions & their applications really destroys that. Considering the policies to be a sort of Constitution for Wikipedia, they ought not be prolix but understandable. Anyone's MMV as to what constitutes understandable but certainly it is apparent by now that the tortured PS/SS/TS distinction is not understandable, either in text or in application. --Lquilter (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts about definitions. Because of the wide variety of Wikipedia editors, and the fact that many of them don't read, or only skim, policies, Wikipedia is not a good environment to try to create definitions that differ from the ordinary meaning of words. Also, once an organization (e.g. Wikipedia) creates a definition for one purpose, it tends to reuse the definition for other purposes. So saying that the definitions of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is just for the purpose of preventing original research probably won't work. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with your first points. I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. Do you mean to say that the defining PS/SS/TS in the NOR guideline won't prevent OR, because the definitions of PS/SS/TS are vague? --Lquilter (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me revise my last point. The NOR policy currently states "for the purposes of Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are broadly defined as follows:". So the definitions of source types in this policy apply to every other policy and guideline too, and all policies and guidelines must be written accordingly. Alternatively, the beginning of the PSTS section contains a serious falsehood, which invalidates the entire section. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If references to primary/secondary sources are to be made, as references to facts, then the references should be to the mainspace articles primary source and secondary source where they are expected to be NPOV, verifiable, etc, and any editor is welcomed in improving them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with moving the section on PS/SS/TS definitions to a guideline and relying more on examples that we can agree on, rather than definitions that we can't consistently apply. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow... several people have taken my comment and run with it alot further than I intended. Just to make my position clear... I did not intend my comments to start another round of "let's get rid of PSTS or at least move it". We have been down that road, and a very vocal group of editors have made it clear that they think some form of PSTS is vital to this policy. That is not going to change. Everyone needs to accept this if we are ever going to get consensus language we can all live with. So, given that we are going to have some type of PSTS section... all I really wanted to to was remind people of the point to all of this. Any language we come up with should focus more on avoiding OR and less on avoiding Primary sources. That's all. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Shifting the PSTS paradigm

OK, here's another suggestion for you all to ignore :-) I was going to work it up into an essay, but this seems like an apposite moment to present it, incomplete and poorly worded though it is.

This is a proposal for a complete rewrite of the primary/secondary distinction in terms of the people that originate the sources, rather than relying on features of the sources themselves, as the present policy does.

So far, this only deals with definitions, not usage. I'd be grateful if someone would test it against a few cases to see if it runs, limps, or falls over straight away.

---

Primary and secondary sources

Rules for this subsection:

• Always take the last option that fits without forcing (1a > 1b > 2)
• A topic is a Wikipedia article or a part of it.
• "someone" and "someone else" must be identifiable non-fictional people.
• The singular "someone" includes the plural "some people".

Definitions

1. A primary source for a topic is either:

• a. an observed thing that is relevant to the topic, or
• b. someone describing their own thoughts about the topic or describing things that they have observed about it.

2. A secondary source is someone discussing at some length someone else's thoughts or observations about the topic.

Usage

• Wikipedia editors should always be careful not to introduce their own thoughts (original research) into any topic. The aim is that any reasonable, educated person should be able to confirm that the information contained in every topic agrees with the cited sources.
• Particular care should be taken with type 1b primary sources because they contain no independent check on the rationality or impartiality of the author. Because of this concern, reliable secondary sources are preferred.

Examples

Example one. The Gundestrup cauldron is a (type 1a) primary source because it is an "observed thing" obviously relevant to its own topic. Now, Fred Smith has written up his own thoughts about the cauldron in a book The Gundestrup Cauldron - My Way. That book is also a primary source (type 1b), because it describes Smith's thoughts about the cauldron, but doesn't mention anyone else's thoughts or observations about it. However, Jane Jones' well-referenced book All About the Gundestrup Cauldron is a secondary source for the cauldron because in it she discusses other people's thoughts about it and their observations of it.

Example two. Many sources are both primary and secondary depending on the context. For instance Jim Black's book A History of London is a secondary source for London's history, because in it he discusses other people's thoughts about the city and their observations of it. However, the book is also a (type 1a) primary source on Jim Black because it is an observed thing (a book) relevant to Jim Black. Jim Black's autobiography is a (type 1b) primary source on Jim Black because in it he describes his own thoughts about himself.

Example three. A photograph of a car is a type 1a primary source for that car. It might be a type 1b source, if it's photographed in a way that could be said to express the photographer's thoughts about it (that's probably forcing it a bit). It certainly isn't a secondary source, though.

---

That's it (E&OE). It probably needs some further rules about the meaning of "thoughts" and "discussing" (discussing certainly includes interpretation, synthesis etc).  —SMALLJIM  19:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the biggest problem with PS/SS/TS is how it is used and what it is used for. The definitional problems suggest, to me, that it is not always helpful and in fact may be more frequently unhelpful and confusing. I do appreciate fresh attempts to cut through this mess, though! --Lquilter (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This discussion caught my attention when I was checking to see if I could use a photograph of someone playing a musical instrument to cite the claim that they were a player of that instrument. I'd consider that using the photo as a secondary source. It would only be a primary source if the article were about that specific photo. The primary/secondary distinction as made in composition classes everywhere hinges on the relationship of the source to the subject. The primary source is the subject. Everything else is secondary but only in the context of a given piece of writing. For most wikipedia articles there will be no citable primary source. The primary source for an article about carrots would be a carrot. A photograph of a carrot is a secondary source by virtue of the fact that it's not a carrot. It would only be a primary source in an article about that particular instance of a photograph of a carrot. Anything else is a deviation from standard usage and quite possibly original research. --Vlvtelvis (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I've just added a first attempt at a "Usage" section to the above, written from the same "people" point of view. I think it explains the intention of PSTS far more concisely than the existing text does.  —SMALLJIM  23:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This model would work much better for religion and philosophy articles than the current PST model. The PST model assumes a monotonic regress from the source: primary=close, secondary=observations of, teriery=observations of secondary, etc. With religious thought (and sometimes literature and philosophy and art as well) the relationship is more cyclical with layers of interpretation based on interpretation that eventually are reintegrated into direct reading of the original primary source. The advantage of this reframing is that it does not assume a monotonic regress from the source.

RavPapa above suggested that religion articles offer a good litmus test for OR problems so I'd like to see how this works with the bible commentary example I gave above:

• bible manuscript - primary source (1a)
• bible edition - (1b) - somebody/some committee's opinion of the "real" or "best" text based on observing manuscripts, possibly (2) when an annotation discusses variant readings and cites sources for those - as is sometimes done in critical editions
• midrash - 1a for an article on midrash, 1b for an article on bible text
• rashi - 1a for an article on rashi, 1b on bible text (Rashi's opinion of the bible), 1b on midrash (Rashi's opinion of midrash)
• academic article on rashi - 1b to the extent author draws his/her own conclusions directly from Rashi's commentary and is writing about Rashi, 2 if the author is writing on the bible and using Rashi's interpretation of a biblical passage, also 2 if the author does a lit review of other works on rashi's commentary
• Plaut commentary on bible (based on critical scholarship) - 1a if someone is writing an article on modern biblical commentaries, 1b if Plaut is drawing conclusions about the meaning of a passage directly from its textual content, 2 if Plaut is summarizing what other commentators have said

The definitions above seem to work well for material like biblical commentary. I'd personally prefer this alternate approach. Egfrank (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved from bot discussion page

I'm afraid that Tim Vickers asked his question in the wrong spot, but as you can see, nobody there has come forth with a single reputable source that defines primary and secondary any different that I did. I'll paste my sources, which completely agree with me, below, with some annotation. Many of these are university library's pages. Do you think it likely that university librarians don't know what they are talking about? Or that science professors would allow the librarians to get it wrong so often, since they have to tell their students what a primary and secondary source is while directing their student's writing?

1. University of Hawaii "How does Biological literature evolve over time?"
2. William Madison Randall Library "Identifying Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources"
3. Cal State Northridge "Types of Resources"
4. University of Minnesota Bio-Medical Library "Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources in the Health Sciences"
5. Diablo Valley College "Identifying Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources"
6. Florida Institute of Technology "Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources"
7. Yale University "Lesson 3: Recognizing Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources"
8. OhioLINK, is a consortium of 86 Ohio college and university libraries, and the State Library of Ohio "Cycle of Scientific Literature"
9. University of California Santa Barbara "Distinguishing Between Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources"
10. eric.ed.gov Education Resources Information Center "Chemical Literature Exercises and Resources"
11. And finally, a book: Writing Guidelines for Postgraduate Science Students By John Hampton. AnteaterZot (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved this from User talk:ProteinBoxBot, since that isn't really the place to discuss the details of this policy. However, as I read the discussion above, the problem seems to be that some people are arguing that the Wikipedia PS/SS definitions do not follow those used in other areas. Speaking personally, I am very unhappy that we have a policy that is not interpretable since there is no consensus on the meaning of the words used. This is becoming increasingly disruptive to the project. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Completely agree. As an editor who simply came to these pages originally to seek some guidance for how to explain a problem to users on a page, I found the pages to be more confusing than helpful. Then when I started reading the talk pages to see if that would help it became even clearer to me that not only is the PS/SS/TS not helpful on the policy, it is an incredible source of disruption and argument. --Lquilter (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving PSTS

Any attempt to move PSTS out of this policy will be soundly rejected by the same group of editors who seem to think that having all of these circular discussions, resulting confusion and edit-wars about source-types is beneficial to both this policy and Wikipedia. It's easy enough to rattle off the names by now just from memory, but it almost as easy for any reader to breifly peruse this talk page, the last couple of archives, and view the edit history of the policy itself to see who would oppose it. This also at least would give the casual reader a context for some of their positions, which I wouldn't be able to accurately define just from memory. Some of the comments by those in the group that oppose moving PSTS out of this policy include statements such as:

1. ...an attempt to weaken policy...
2. ...an attempt to derail policy..
3. ...the people who are most frustrated by this policy are those who want to violate it. Well - good!!
4. a non-starter
5. ...but major changes such as removal of material that has been stable for years, cannot be contemplated unless there is wide support.

etc.

So, as I stated in a section above, what we are left with is a stalemate of being left more-or-less with something that is confusing to most Wikipedians. This policy talk page will continue to be almost exclusively about PSTS, and edit wars will continue on the policy itself into perpetuity. This then begs the question. Since we are stuck with these ill-defined terms that are used with different meanings in different disciplines in different contexts, how can (or can it) be corrected within this policy?

It should be noted that back around August or so, Vassyana was one of those who opposed many of the changes being discussed. As any casual reader of the talk page in the last few weeks or longer can tell, that position was changed and Vassyana has worked extremely diligently towards compromise language acceptable to all parties, but we still have the minimal definitions which has helped, but not eliminated the 'confusion factor'.

Back in September, I stated "Also, I would tend to not go with the self-contained approach, as I see that as what's caused this mess. The policy itself does state "Since the policies complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.", it seems to me as if the self-contained approach has already been addressed as not viable." This is in regards to each policy having its own self-contained 'blurb' about sources. This was followed by a comment from one of those currently in the group opposed to (most) changes with "I agree with you on the 'self-contained approach' wbfergus. Due to the nature of these sourcing and content policies, there has to be some overlapping areas between them, we just need a better means of making sure that the overlaps match, and are not confusing or contradictory to each other". So, there is some minimal ground available for a compromise amongst all parties, but how do we reach it?

I could see the entire PSTS section being greatly expanded to cover any and all defintions as used by the various disciplines, which may reduce the sheer amount of volume of discussions on this page, but at the same time it would make the policy itself extremely unwieldly and far more difficult to read and understand. Most readers would quickly be consumed with "What does this have to do with original research?" or after spending a huge amount of time reading and digesting it, would say "Okay, now I understand what original research means, and I also know how every other discipline uses the terms primery, secondary and/or tertiary sources".

I could also see the PSTS section remaining pretty much the same, with only minor changes over the years, as one 'group' thinks the policy is fine as it is, they don't bother much with the discussion page anymore, and will constantly revert any changes to the main policy page no matter how many people agree to a change on this page.

Does anybody else see any other alternatives? wbfergus ^Talk 23:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly support moving PSTS to its own self-contained guideline. It would allow the kind of space appropriate to examine the different general subjects and situations, as well as address the issues of neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, verifiability, reliable sourcing and notability that are related to the source distinctions. It would also do a lot to stabilize this policy. An alternative would be work on an alternative but parallel paradigm (essentially a terminology change). A lot of baggage comes with the primary/secondary terms. I'd personally recommend a distinction between what sources articles should principally rely upon (especially for analysis and determining NPOV) and generally "everything else". (You're welcome to some grains of salt.) Vassyana (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I oppose moving it. It's central to this policy that articles rely on secondary sources, particularly for anything controversial, in BLPs, and to establish notability. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in my opening sentence/paragraph. So how can we address clearly up the confusion factor and endless discussions on this policy so that almost everything doesn't revolve around PSTS issues? wbfergus ^Talk 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Slim, how exactly is it "central to this policy that articles rely on secondary sources"? I've seen this stated before but as yet no one has been able to explain it. Also, could you please explain this in light of the A reminder to all that was active until a few hours ago?

Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been in the policy for about three years and is widely accepted. You need secondary sources to establish notability of the subject, and to establish that you're not engaging in original analysis or synthesis of primary sources. Articles with no secondary sources are frequently deleted. Can you show me a good article that contains no secondary-source material? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Having been in the policy "for three years" is not a reason that it is "central to this policy that articles rely on secondary sources." Also, the use of "secondary sources to establish notability" is not relevant to this policy. So, would you please answer the question? Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course notability is relevant to this policy. You show that your ideas are notable, and not your own mish-mish of primary sources (or, worse, no sources), by producing reliable, published secondary sources that say what you are saying. This shows that other people think the issue is worth writing about, not just you. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, this is NOR policy we're talking about, right? Notability is about suitability of article/topic(/sources). "No original research" is about accurately reflecting a source statement. It is the antonym of "original research" which is novel interpretation (of a source).

Neither process influences or is influenced by the notability/reliability of the source that is/isn't being mangled. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Re: SV's comment: But, since "secondary sources" is clearly confusing for people (since the usage varies across fields), why not just replace that with "reliable published sources". We could then link to the WP:RS page which discusses how to evaluate and assess sources, and maybe the material on source classification would find a better home here. (Wouldn't it be nice if some of this dispute could be resolved simply by recontextualizing the information?) --Lquilter (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Because they must be reliable secondary sources, not just published. As I said, articles without them are routinely deleted. This policy has to be both prescriptive and descriptive of best practice. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Slim, I really do understand/appreciate the importance of SS for notability, but NOR is not prescriptive of notability. While a discussion of SS/PS may have merit in notability (though a link to secondary sources might also suffice), such a distinction of source type has nothing to do with the accurate portrayal of what sources say. --- 00:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

But NOR is (or purports to be) prescriptive of the meaning of primary source, secondary source, and tertiary source in WP:N and every other policy and guideline because it includes the phrase "for the purposes of Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are broadly defined as follows:". --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Zigzagtly! Nary a word about "original research," but plenty to say about notability, rs and other stuff. Useful? Perhaps to notability, rs and other stuff, but not to "original research." -- Fullstop (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, they must be something other than merely published, but since there's no consensus as to what "secondary" means, then "secondary" maybe isn't the best way to describe what they must be. "Reliable" could summarize that, no? And refer people to WP:RS to ascertain what reliable means. PS/SS/TS then helps explain reliability. --Lquilter (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS continues to be an bone of contention and that needs to be resolved before we can fix this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there anybody here that believe that an article can be solely based on primary sources? I so, please say so... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change the subject. The subject "Moving PSTS" out of NOR. The subject is not RS or notability. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not tell me what to say or not to say, and spare us the "thanks". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi said WP:RS continues to be an bone of contention and that needs to be resolved before we can fix this. -- Jossi, what I'm wondering is whether moving PS/SS/TS to WP:RS would help both pages. First, it seems to be a better "fit"; second, the disputes here about PS/SS/TS have been over how to define and use the various categories; particularly, how does peer-reviewed literature fit here, when is it primary and when secondary. The disputes have not been over people putting in OR into wikipedia articles -- everybody agrees that that's not correct. All the squabbles are about what are the best sources. So since this is principally an argument about sources and use of sources, and that's what PS/SS/TS is most helpful for, it seems that moving it to WP:RS would clean up WP:NOR. And the PS/SS/TS material might offer another way to structure WP:RS to provide the best, clearest guidance for WP editors. --Lquilter (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

<<< Vassyana, would you undertake starting a sandbox for a PSTS page based on your comment above, as well as a summary that coukld be added to NOR? That way we well be able to evaluate the merit of that proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Following a couple of comments (including mine) from which it isn't evident whether the commentator agrees or disagrees with a move, can we get this discussion back on track? Should PSTS be moved?
The lack of relevance to NOR is prima facie (even worse so since a few hours ago) evident. So far the only reason for an opposition to a move is because it is relevant to NOTE, which of course is then a reason for a move to NOTE. Any other reasons why PSTS should not be moved? -- Fullstop (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fullstop (and others). Personally I would full heartedly agree with moving PSTS somehwere more appropriate, but it simply ain't gonna happen. As I said in the opening paragraph, there are those who would oppose it, regardless of any arguments, evidence, etc. This 'block' consists of approximately 13 or more editors, so simple math (and a little 'guessitmation' on what makes a clear consensus) means for an 80% 'consensus', we would need around 50-60 other editors to agree to a move. Then the other group would bring in more editors, etc. It would be a very long and tedious process. So, since moving the section is nigh onto impossible, at least in the short term. what can be done to address the fundamental problem, which to me is primarily with the definitions within PSTS. I'm going to start a new section with an idea that may be agreeable to all parties, barring just obstructionism. wbfergus ^Talk 15:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you say a move "ain't gonna happen" when there appears to be a rough consensus for a move. —Viriditas | Talk 15:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, for a roughly 80% consensus (and actual numbers have never been defined anywhere for what is a consensus), the 'block' supporting a move needs 4 people for each person in the 'block' that would oppose a move. After 4 months or so, there are only around 65 'participants' on this page, even after announcements on other policies, the Village Pump and a RfC. That in itself seems insufficient for something like an outright removal of material from a policy, unless perhaps something around 95% of all participants agreed. And again, that won't happen. I know it's awfully long and convoluted, but the best bet to see the 'reasoning' would be by reading through the Archives for the last 4 months, or perhaps a very general overview could be garnered by looking at the edit history of the policy, and reading the 'edit summaries'. There's also the ongoing RfC against COgden with many comments, and the ArbCom request with more additional comments. wbfergus ^Talk 15:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've seen it all (and a lot more) and I'm less than impressed. There's a lot of history here you may not be familiar with. As for outright removal, the instruction creep and policy bloat has reached a point where if you removed half of it, it might be a great improvement. KISS. —Viriditas | Talk 16:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Move PSTS to reduce churn

I'd say PSTS should be moved simply to reduce churn in the NOR talk page. This is really getting ridiculous. New section started after my fourth edit conflict trying to reply to the previous debate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and move it, if no prohibition in NOR depends on the definitions contained in the moved PSTS. Also, remove the claim that the definitions apply to all policies and guidelines, and restrict the scope to just NOR. If prohibitions anywhere in Wikipedia depend on definitions in PSTS, the churn will continue. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, don't. Start a PSTS page and propose it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly think that all the established editors who have been mucking about with these pages should stop. That means editors from all sides. If people have to argue on these pages until the cows come home, fine, but the back-and-forth reverting on the main page is silly, and more appropriate to novice WP editors than to the established editors and admins that are doing it.

As for process going forward, since there are multiple ideas on the table, I suggest a page that lists the several major approaches -- it should be one page because the problem and solutions span multiple pages. (WP:NOR and WP:RS at the least; WP:FICT also springs to mind as an elephant in the room.) I set up an outline at User:Lquilter/Approaches and will undertake to fill in some pieces. --Lquilter (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear, I second Lquilter's call for a "cease fire" here. I'd also echo what Jossi said - if anything is going to happen to PSTS it needs to proposed properly--Cailil ^talk 01:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR, FUBAR. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources, notability, and this policy

Someone argued above that primary sources and the issue of notability aren't directly connected to OR, but they are in fact central to it.

Here is an example of Jimbo removing original research — material based entirely on primary sources — from a BLP.

This was OR because it relied solely on primary sources. The sources were good (including trial transcripts), and the intepretation of them was, I believe, accurate. But no secondary source had seen fit to mention the subject. It was not regarded as relevant to this person's life by anyone other than the Wikipedia editors who added it.

It is for this reason that secondary sources are required in Wikipedia articles -- to answer the questions: "Who cares about this other than you?" and "Who is interpreting the primary sources like this, other than you?" If you can't answer those questions, you're probably engaged in original research. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

All of these things do interrelate, but it may be that there are better and more logical ways to present the same information so that it causes less friction. --Lquilter (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason for it to cause friction. The definitions are very simple; they're backed up by academic sources; the distinctions are understood and frequently used by good editors; they've been in place for three years; articles that lack secondary sources are routinely deleted by administrators and via AfD because they contain OR and aren't notable. As I said earlier, this policy has to reflect what good editors do, not only prescribe, and it currently does describe what good editors do. If you doubt that, please show me a good article that contains no secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Every topic has its own definition of notability. For example, since there are so many college professors, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) has extremely stringent requirements that go way beyond these sourcing issues. That's just my two cents, I'm not really taking sides (I don't really know what the conflict here is about), although I would like to see more outside sourcing used to back up people's arguments. For example, what do paper encyclopedias do about these issues? AnteaterZot (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I find a short edit summary unconvincing. It could be read to mean that any use of primary sources is original research. Or it could be read to mean that using legal primary resources in connection with biographies of living persons is original research, since it is difficult for the non-lawyer to determine which of many legal documents is the difinitive decision on a case. If you succeed in saying that it is ever original research to quote a primary source, I will say the definition of original research is so thoroughly screwed up that I will reject the entire policy and refuse to read it and do whatever seems right to me, and if you don't like it, you can block me.

Please note the example given of a revert by Jimbo Wales is about adding material to an article, not about the notability required to have an article in the first place. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It was about the notability of that issue in the life of that person. Secondary sources hadn't written about it. Therefore, it was deemed not notable, an example of OR, because based entirely on primary sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the best rational for the removal would be undue weight, because there was no source saying the legal matters were on a par in importance with the rest of the article. (Since documents would have had to be reviewed to reach such a conclusion, such a source would necessarily have to be secondary in this case.) A second-best rationale would be that even if it satisfied policy, the material just wasn't interesting enough to retain in the article. Saying it is original research to decide to include material from primary sources unless a secondary source says it's important puts us on a slippery slope, because deciding what to put in and leave out of an article is essential to writing an encyclopedia; that's source-based research, not original research. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment — that undue weight would be the primary reason for removal of that material, not a blind anti-primary sources rule. Such a rule would be doing us a disservice in many topics; for example, there were several important aspects of Orion (mythology) that just were not covered in secondary sources, just because it's an obscure subject. What could possibly be a good reason for objecting to such (non-controversial) material?--Pharos (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec twice)

Slim! What are you saying?!

1. The link is not in fact removing original research because it is based on primary sources. The edit comment states the removal was because it was original research. Thats it. Not a word about the source having been primary, which in fact it is, but has nothing to do with the OR violation.
2. (please ready this very carefully) "original research" is the process by which an editor takes a statement in a source, and misinterprets that statement in wikispace.
   This is what that editor in the link evidently did.
   NOR on the other hand is the policy that aims to prevent misinterpretation/misrepresentation of sources.
   It does not matter at all whether the source being misintepreted is primary or secondary or tertiary. Mis-representation can occur with any kind of source.
3. Notability is another policy and is neither influenced by OR/NOR, nor does it influence OR/NOR.

-- Fullstop (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It may seem that there is no reason for it to cause friction, but it clearly has caused friction. I'm just looking for the cause, and to me it seems that the cause is that there is a lack of clarity in the terms. Just reading over the talk pages for the past couple of weeks I've seen people clearly talking about two different things when they talk about "PS" or "SS". --Lquilter (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There are people claiming there is a lack of clarity, but is there really? The terms seem quite simple for the most part. A primary source is produced by someone close to or involved in the situation. A secondary source is one step removed, someone uninvolved. It isn't rocket science.

Of course there will be unusual, borderline, complex examples, just as there are with anything -- with defining the word "reliable," or the word "published," for instance. But so what? Most people, most of the time, understand what these words mean and what they imply. Ditto with primary/secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be a lot of original research on this page defining them. That's why I provided all those links above. Many of them define primary, secondary and tertiary sources for all fields. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Thank you for the links. Our policy is consistent with them, but there are people on this talk page who are just inventing their own definitions. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the definitions seem simple enough to paraphrase in a sentence. But evidently they are not simple in application. People have fouled themselves up over peer reviewed research in the sciences & humanities. It may seem incredibly simple to some people, but this talk page & its arguments is replete with people who are confused about the terms & their application. Ergo, it is not simple. --Lquilter (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, lets see who is inventing his/her own definition here...

• To reiterate Jimbo on lists that SlimVirgin herself used in the big fubar that became today's PSTS, with tags in green to note which current policy covers that (NB: Jimbo's comment is from the days before RS policy, i.e. when RS/NOR were not distinct)

"The basic concept [of 'original research'] is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is _true_ or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we _can_ do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers.RS So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of thingsNOR by simply sticking to thingsNOR that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide.RS

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-December/017557.html

• Further...

An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonethless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish.
I agree completely.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-December/017591.html

• To reiterate WP:NOR "in a nutshell":

*Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor a forum for promoting one's own point of view; all material must be verifiable
* Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts
* Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses

Note also the complete lack of any reference to type of source, and inversely the (virtually) complete lack of reference to NOR/OR in the PSTS section.

• To reiterate WP:NOTE "in a nutshell":

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Note the complete lack of reference to OR/NOR. Note also the dependency of the phrase "inclusion criteria" in the first sentence of the article, and that "no original research" can never determine suitability for inclusion.

Sorry, Slim, its evidently time for you to revise that idea of yours that OR and NOTE are somehow interdependent.

-- Fullstop (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Fullstop, but you write above go against your own arguments.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

please don't feel pressed to actually say anything substantial. It might break your streak. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of saying anything when there is an inability to listen? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

---

(unindent) SlimVirgin requested "if you doubt that, please show me a good article that contains no secondary sources". Well, that depends on what you define as good, and what you define as primary source. The article Mendenhall Order only (directly) uses U.S. government publications, the very same government that issued the order. Yes, it does wikilink to articles that contain secondary sources. Yes, secondary sources could be found if someone wanted to find them. Of course, one could argue that since the present government officials have little incentive to cover up any deficiencies of the officials that served more than 100 years ago, the fact that they are all officials in the the same government is a mere formality, and the government publications are really secondary sources in this case. Or, you could argue that it's a bad article. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That article contains references to secondary sources e.g. Barbrow, Louis E. and Judson, Lewis V. (1976). Weights and measures standards of the United States: A brief history (NBS Special Publication 447). Washington D.C.

I'm asking for an example of a good article with no secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Barbrow et al. is only a secondary source if you are willing to allow that it is indepencent of the organization that gave the order. The order was by the United States. Barbrow et al. was published by the United States. Formally, they are not independent, but in practical terms, they are, because the actual officials who gave the order were long dead by the time Barbrow et al. wrote their work. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are confusing "independent source” with “secondary source”. A secondary source may be either dependent or independent. An independent source may be a primary source or a secondary source. If the title reflects the contents, the words “A brief history” mean that Barbrow et al. is, without ambiguity, a secondary source. Its independence is ambiguous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Some days, this policy includes language that classifies dependent sources as primary, whether they constitute a review of other sources or not. I see that today, a secondary source need not be independent. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if there are good articles with no secondary sources or not (eg TV episode articles with GAs). The lack of SS does not reflect on whether that article is guilty of OR or not, and inversely, articles completely with SS/TS can be just as guilty. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm. If we agree for the sake of argument that, as SV says, the PS/SS/TS distinction is important for both WP:N and WP:OR then that would seem to argue that it should be separate, with a reference to it on both pages. --Lquilter (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Articles on primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources already exist. Those articles need outside sources, and we should use the outside definitions. Using the outside definitions is the only way to resolve conflict. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A separate policy or guideline on PSTS would require that WP:N and WP:NOR both be revised whenever any significant change was made to PSTS. That's quite apart from whether it is practical to accept any internal definitons. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Using the outside definitions is the only way to resolve conflict". No. The only way we can develop uncontentious policy definitions of what we want "primary" and "secondary" sources to mean is to invent our own new terms for them. It'll take time, but you'll all see the sense of this eventually :)  —SMALLJIM  09:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with re-defining commonly used terms is the [law of primacy] which holds that people will have difficulty adjusting to the new definitions, especially when under stress (such as in a content conflict). This is not a desirable situation, and we should avoid it as much as possible. Dhaluza (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an argument against doing it, certainly - probably the only significant one. But think of all the disagreements and misunderstandings (just on this page!) that would be avoided. My proposal above has the side effect of working towards such a beneficial change: by necessarily defining two types of primary source it introduces the idea of "type 1a" and "type 1b" primary sources. It's then only a small further step to associate secondary sources with "type 2" and everything is in place for a gradual shift to the new terms.  —SMALLJIM  13:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Gerry Ashton is correct. In the field of metrology, the use of Barbrow and Judson in Mendenhall Order is as a primary source. This is because the source is a primary document by the U.S. Government (United States Department of Commerce) concerning evidence from the U.S. Government that directly examines not just the history of U.S. weights, but the collected data in regards to units of weights and measures and SI units from the Federal Register of the United States. —Viriditas | Talk 14:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are people upset with this policy?

Let me suggest a reason people may be so upset about this policy. Original research is wonderful. A scientist who freezes her butt off to take climate data in Antarctica feels she is doing a service to humanity. Try to imagine how a scientist feels after spending years poring through data, and finally discovers a theory that puts it all in perspective. What would we know about the world if there were no journalists who go into dangerous areas and interview people who don't know if they are going to survive the day?

Granted, Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original research. But often in this policy, and on this talk page, original research is a label that is slapped on all kinds of sloppy or deceitful editorial practices, such as quoting out of context, or synthesis of ideas that misrepresent the sources. This is an insult to people who do real original research, and no wonder they get hot under the collar when something so important to them is equated to sloppiness and/or deceit.

To avoid insulting original researchers, I suggest that whenever possible, sloppy or deceitful practices be described in appropriate negative terms, such as undue weight, or quoting out of context, and not be labeled with the positive term original research.-Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that any truly interesting result will not get commented on by any scientist (by means of a review article) and/or also not get picked up by any journalist (they have science writers on staff at many newspapers, magazines, and radio and TV shows. NPR has a Science Friday show.). Scientists can send out press releases, and do, all the time. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above point may be valid for scientific research where there is intense competition to publish the new. Given today's IP environment few self-respecting academics would want to put real research out into the public domain. However, in addition to the nut cases, religious zealots, political pushers, etc, Wikipedia does have some well trained editors who are perfectly capable of doing good original work. For these editors I think we do need to be careful about turning OR into a derogatory term.

These editors sometimes stray into the area of original research because it takes time to learn the difference between analyzing and assessing sources (as one might for a term paper, thesis, or advanced seminar) and merely reporting on them (as one must in a Wikipedia article or might in lecturing for an introductory survey course). These kind of editors don't always see their work as original research because the kinds of deductions they make would not be original research in a literature, philosophy, or religion department. To the contrary, to people in the field, they would simply be reasonable opinions consistent with the sources and not nearly "original" enough to merit publishing. They are only OR in the Wikipedia context where we want material to be verifiable by any reasonably intelligent high school student. Egfrank (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's recent edit(s)

In an undiscussed set of edits, Slim Virgin removed the following passage from the policy page:

All sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not verifiable. Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims are included in Wikipedia articles, use appropriate sources rather than original analysis by Wikipedia editors.

The removal occurred during an edit that was ostensibly because "someone removed that articles need secondary sources."

I question its removal,

• because this paragraph is a key statements in NOR policy,
• in light of SlimVirgin's assumption (?) that its necessary to ramble on about PS/SS.
• that there was a discussion about this only yesterday, to which she did not contribute.

If nothing else, this is the application of a double-standard, i.e. "bold" editing, ignoring so-called "consensus", and the idea that one keeps thing because they've been in the policy since Noah.

Comments? -- Fullstop (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I would like to see is the community enforce a 1RR on policy pages and ban tag-teaming reverts altogether. —Viriditas | Talk 15:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Or at least temporarily. (Although difficulty in defining "tag-teaming" - blech. Ideally editor/admins would just police themselves.) --Lquilter (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've undone the edits, because they were significant and it was not discussed on the talk page. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Vassyana (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I edited conflicted restoring Brimba's harmonization because SlimVirgin restored that portion of the revert (appropriately so). Vassyana (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Would this be acceptable, re: PSTS

Perhaps a way towards some sort of compromise would be by leaving the 'Sources' section, but relegating the actual definition of the terms in the appropriate articles after those three articles Primary sources, etc. were expanded to have discipline specific definitions (maybe a lot of work?), each of them upgraded to at least 'guideline' status, and then appropriately linked from this policy (and any others), similar to "definition of these terms is beyond the scope of this policy, see the appropriate guideline for a more complete, discipline specific set of definitions". Most of the current wording would still remain in the policy, but the actual definitions are just moved elsewhere for more complete coverage. This policy could then merely state what it needs to about primary, secondary, etc. without getting bogged down in conflicts over what is a primary source, etc. in which context or in regards to which discipline.

In the interests of trying something new for clarity, can anybody responding please respond only in the correct designated 'area', either 'For' or 'Oppose' with a brief statement of why you think so? If you disagree with somebody elses statement, please do not respond directly underneath it, it makes following discussions for either 'side' more difficult. Use the separate 'Comments' section instead.

For

1. wbfergus ^Talk 15:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC) agree (uh, because it's my suggestion?)
2. Tentative support (subject to withdrawal at any time, of course. <g>) This would be a step in the right direction, because it would permit close examination of discipline-specific issues with respect to the definitions. The definitions should also include use scenarios which would actually make them much more helpful and understandable to the novice. Caveats: (1) I'm not sure that each of the source types needs a separate page--they might be better done all together as they are here. (2) "Promote" to guideline presumes that's the direction and that's good but it shouldn't be automatic. From what I can tell at this late date there is not (currently) consensus on these terms. (3) I believe that some of the difficulty is also in the prefatory material which describes how to use the source guidance. That will continue to be a bone of contention, I suspect. My own view is that PSTS is a helpful model but there will always be situations in which sources don't quite fit the model; it should be explained as a model so that people understand that we don't care about the classification, per se, we just care about the underlying principle -- NOR -- and he classification is one shorthand way to help figure out whether you have OR or not. --Lquilter (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. -Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Primary source is an article, not a guideline or policy. It should not contain any material that is only useful in making Wikipedia editorial decisions. If a parallel guideline were created, whether or not a given article or edit satisfied NOR and NOTE would depend on the interplay between the definitions and the policy. As a general rule, strict definitions require loose policy, to allow the use of sources that happen to fall into a definition that does not reflect the true character of the source. The slightest change to the definitions might require extensive rewrite of the policies, but when they are in separate pages, it is unlikely this would happen. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

1. wbfergus ^Talk 15:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC) This is totally non-binding. I'm merely offering this approach to see if there might be some common, middle-ground that most parties involved can agree might be a workable approach to all of the edit-warring and endless discussions. If there isn't any middle-ground on this suggestion, then we can always take a look at other ideas, but lets see if there are any areas of agreement in the 'small step' approach.
2. If I understand correctly, this proposal is to put the source definitions into "guidelines" drawing from the articles to start with; is that right? If so, you might want to clarify the proposal to avoid the confusion that Gerry Ashton has had. --Lquilter (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Another reminder

It might be helpful to interject some history and remind people how the term "Primary Source" first entered this policy... It occured back in February of 2004, in this edit.

To me, the key point of the addition was to highlight that Wikipeda should not become a primary source... It did not talk about Wikipedia articles not using primary sources. In fact, for quite a while the policy specifically stated that you could use primary sources: as this version from early August of 2005 demonstrates: Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

Now, I do understand that policy changes over time... and what was included in 2005 is not going to be the same as it is in 2007. My point in showing these old versions is not to say we should turn back the clock to 2005... my point is to highlight the intent behind the introduction of source typing... the fore-runner to the current PSTS section.

Until quite recently, the entire point of discussing source types was focused not on the sources we were using, but on what kind of source Wikipedia is. Introducing OR into an article turns Wikipedia into a primary source... and Wikipedia should not be a primary source. This is a concept that I hope all of you would agree is at the core of the NOR policy.

The thing is... somewhere along the lines we lost the tie between source typing and what Wikipedia is and is not... we lost the statement that tied source typing directly to the concept of NOR. We lost the intent behind discussing source typing... the idea that Wikipedia is not a primary source. We now have a lot of explanation about source types, but no direct link to why they are important to the concept of No Original Research.

If we are going to keep the PSTS section... I think we need to add this back. We need to revive the statement that we do not want Wikipedia to be a primary source. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is a very good point. I think it helps deal with my concern which is that we do not care about classifying sources just because we care about classifying sources; but we care about classifying sources only because it is a means to an end -- a helpful shortcut to identifying whether or not something is OR (verboten) or sourced, reliable, verifiable information previously published in a reliable source (bring it on so we can neutral-ify it). --Lquilter (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Where does it say in the current wording that Wikipedia articles should not use primary sources? It says: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. which is very different. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I fully agree that the current wording does not bar primary sources... that it only cautions editors to take care in using them... I did not mean to imply otherwise (in fact, I pointed this out in my other reminder section, above).

I am addressing a different issue here: Why does this policy contain a section that defines Primary and Secondary sources in the first place? The answer is obvious when you look at the edit history: It was to explain what we mean when we stated "Wikipedia is not a primary source". That is a context that has gotten lost in the shuffle. It makes much more sense that we have to define what a primary and secondary source is when the section is placed in its original context. That single sentence ties PSTS to the rest of NOR, something that is somewhat lacking in the current language.

It also goes to intent... the concept of PSTS entered this policy to explain something about Wikipedia itself, not the sources we use in Wikipedia. We have lost that intent. We need to return it. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Jossi. Reiterating the "where does it say" inanity is now patently a case of "hello, are you not listening?" Well, even if you can't/don't want to hear, its been said, over and over and over and over again. So change the record.

1. There is no need to say something that does not say something.
2. yadda, yadda, "may" yadda "only with care" yadda. As if editors - in their own minds - ever supposed that they something without "care." From the point of view of the editor, he/she may use PS. Of course its with "care" of course he/she would never "misuse" them.

Oh, and please try to not indulge in non-sequiturs and other inconsequentialities. Although your intention is of course to distract/muddy the waters, it tends to also cast doubt on your ability to follow conversation. Thanks.

-- 17:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A line big enough to drive a truck through....

I just saw this on the article page:

Appropriate sourcing is a complicated issue, and these are general rules. The decision as to whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on individual article talk pages.

I understand the need not to pin people down, but the above line is tantamount to saying "Ignore all of the above". This seems to me more likely to aggravate disputes to the point of unresolvability than to clarify things. Egfrank (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So be it. It is better to have aggravated disputes on talk pages than a guideline that inflexibly prescribes bad advice. And anyway - "ignore all of the above" is already policy. But most importantly, it's true - sourcing is complex. We teach entire college courses on appropriate selection and use of sources. We cannot hope to have a single policy page that gives advice that is universally usable. It is far preferable to encourage the use of discretion and common sense within a set of principles, and I am glad that we have finally adopted that approach. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Vassyana, you made significant changes with no consensus, yet when other people undo some of them to restore old language, you revert saying they need to discuss first on talk. But it has been discussed. There is no consensus for those changes, so please don't keep introducing them. Some of what you changed did stay, but some parts were very problematic e.g. removing that articles should be based on secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

All the changes I've made were based on discussion and well-advertised on the village pump and RfC. You do not get to mystically assert "consensus" or "no consensus" or push your opinion through edits any more than anyone else. You are doing exactly the sort of editing that you criticize COGDEN for. If you disagree with changes to the policy you are free to contribute to the discussions like anyone else. Vassyana (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that asserting your edits have been proposed or discussed is a bald-faced lie. Vassyana (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)